DR. ULPIANO P.

SARMIENTO III
Dean

ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE

Vice Dean

ATTY. MARIA ELIZA CAMILLE B. YAMAMOTO-SANTOS

Prefect of Student Affairs

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

Administrative Officer

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III
Advisers

SAMUEL JOSHUA CRUZ

Overall Chairperson

REX ROLAND REGIO MARIA LOURDES MENDOZA

Chairperson, Academics Chairperson, Finance

MAEIA MIKHAELA MAYUGA DIAZMEAN KYLA SOTELO

Chairperson, Assessment, Learning & Chairperson, Recruitment & Membership
Development
BRYAN AREVALO
PIA MONICA DIMAGUILA Chairperson, Partnership & External
Chairperson, Bar Matters Relations

ANDREA JOSES TAN THERESE JEANNE BELARMINO

Chairperson, Communications Chairperson, Operations & Logistics

MIGERN COLE ESTABILLO ROSANNA NAIG

Chairperson, Secretariat Chairperson, EDP

MA. LOLITA KIM PALENCIA

Chairperson, Bar Mentoring Program
ZYRREL DAVE NAVELA JUSTINE VINCENT PASCUAL
MARK COLOCADO JOEL REMENTILLA
Deputy Chairpersons, Operations & Deputy Chairpersons, Academics
Logistics
GISELLE MARIE DIAZ
Deputy Chairperson, Communications
ANTONINA CONCEPCION
MIER DELA CRUZ JILL QUIMSON
Deputy Chairperson, Membership
MARIEL ARAGON
Deputy Chairpersons, ALD
ARAMAINE BALON
MICHAEL DOMINIQUE ISIDRO JASMINE JAGUNAP
Deputy Chairpersons, Finance
Deputy Chairperson, Bar Matters

ANGEL ROSE CINCO AARON FRANCISCO

MA. REGINA SANTIAGO RHIANA NAVARRO
AUBREY ANGELI TAN Deputy Chairpersons, Bar Mentoring
ZAMANTHA JOSH ALCAZAR Program
DOMSKI CANDOLITA
Deputy Chairpersons, EDP LAARMIE GOCE
ERIKA PACA
KATHERINE ANNE LABAYO Deputy Chairpersons, Secretariat
Deputy Chairperson, Ex Parte

HANZ CHRISTIAN MIRAFLOR KIMBERLY JOY NAPARAN

Commercial Law Political Law

ISABELA SOFIA ELEAZAR ANTHONY JOHN RODRIGUEZ

Legal Ethics Taxation Law

LANCE LIZOR PUNZALAN LOUISE ATHENA MONSERRAT

Remedial Law Civil Law

FELICE LEONAJOY HERNANDEZ ERYL AMRHEIN AGUSTIN

Criminal Law Labor Law
QUENNIE SERENO ENRIC ALCAIDE
Commercial Law Political Law

SOFIA REGINA YASAY ROSCH MANUEL

Legal Ethics Taxation Law

NALA ANOVER HILLARY SANTILLAN

Remedial Law Civil Law

JANNAH ODTUHAN BIANCA VELASCO

Criminal Law Labor Law

KIM JAN BATECAN

VERONICA BAUTISTA
ADRIAN ALY CHIO
JOSE PAULO DE LOS REYES
SYDNEY ROSE DOB
THEA MARAGANA
JOSEPH MILLADO
PRECIOUS MORANTE
DAVID PADRE
PAMELA PRIETO
BIANCA PUJALTE
AMIEL RAPISTA
CHANTAL SANGGALANG

Volunteers
RAMON TIMOTHY BAUTISTA
AUSTIN SANTUELE
This work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals to
which it is addressed – the Bedan community.

Publication, reproduction, dissemination, and distribution, or copying of

the document without the prior consent of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE
ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ACADEMICS
COMMITTEE 2024 is strictly prohibited.

Material includes both cases penned by Justice Hernando and recent

landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court.

COPYRIGHT © 2024
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

REMEDIAL LAW........................................................................................................................... 7
Jurisdiction...............................................................................................................................7
Aspects of Jurisdiction....................................................................................................... 7
Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land, Inc.............................................................................7
Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies..................................... 8
U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw..............................................................8
CIVIL PROCEDURE......................................................................................................................9
Pleadings................................................................................................................................. 9
Parties to Civil Actions - Rule 3..........................................................................................9
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT...........9
Parts and Contents; Formal Requirements - Rule 7........................................................ 11
SPOUSES CORDERO V. OCTAVIANO.....................................................................11
Effect of Failure to Plead - Rule 9.................................................................................... 12
VITARICH CORP. V. DAGMIL....................................................................................12
Amended and Supplemental Pleadings - Rule 10........................................................... 13
HEIRS OF TEJADA V. HAY....................................................................................... 13
Summons...............................................................................................................................14
Service of Summons........................................................................................................14
INTEGRATED MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. V. STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC.
14
Judgments and Final Orders................................................................................................. 15
SPOUSES POBLETE V. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK.... 15
PAGUIO V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (En Banc)..................................................... 16
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.........17
Remedies Before Finality of Judgment..................................................................................19
Appeals and Other Modes of Review - Rules 40-45; Rule 64......................................... 19
SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION V. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS,
INC.............................................................................................................................19
AUSTRIA V AAA AND BBB....................................................................................... 20
ANG V. COURT OF APPEALS.................................................................................. 22
COLLADO V. DELA VEGA........................................................................................ 23
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY OF SUGPON, ILOCOS
SUR........................................................................................................................... 24
Remedies After Judgment Becomes Final............................................................................ 25
Annulment of Judgment - Rule 47................................................................................... 25
Thomas v. Trono........................................................................................................ 25
Execution, Satisfaction, and Effects of Judgments (Rule 39).......................................... 26
CITY GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN V. COURT OF APPEALS.............................26
PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. V. TIG INSURANCE CO...................... 27
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Radio Philippines Network, Inc.......................... 28
Provisional Remedies............................................................................................................ 29
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order - Rule 58.................................29
DE LIMA V. COURT OF APPEALS........................................................................... 29
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS..........................................................................................................30
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65).................................................................. 30
PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS......................................30
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70).................................................................... 31
GALACGAC V. BAUTISTA.........................................................................................31

5
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS....................................................................32
KAIZEN BUILDERS, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS.................................................32
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons........................................................................... 33
GOZUM V. PAPPAS...................................................................................................33
Change of Name (Rule 103)..................................................................................................34
REPUBLIC V. MALIGAYA.......................................................................................... 34
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (Rule 108; R.A. 9048, as amended
by R.A. No. 10172)................................................................................................................ 35
REPUBLIC V. ONTUCA Y PELEÑO..........................................................................35
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE........................................................................................................... 36
Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)....................................................................................... 36
AUSTRIA v. AAA........................................................................................................36
Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)....................................................................................38
Civil Liability Ex-delicto; In cases of Acquittal (See also Civil Code, Art. 36)...................38
COLLADO V. DE VEGA.............................................................................................38
Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)...................................................................................... 39
Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause - Sections 2-4............................ 39
MACASIL V. FRAUD AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE-COMMISSION ON
AUDIT........................................................................................................................ 39
Arrest, Search, and Seizures.................................................................................................40
Search Warrant - Rule 126; Lawful Warrantless Arrest - Rule 113, Sec. 5......................40
SULLANO Y SANTIA V. PEOPLE............................................................................. 40
Bail (Rule 114); Recognizance Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10389)............................................... 41
PEOPLE V. NAPOLES...............................................................................................41
Motion to Quash Information (Rule 117)................................................................................ 42
Double Jeopardy - Section 7............................................................................................42
JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI........................................... 42
Trial (Rule 119)...................................................................................................................... 43
Demurrer to Evidence (Section 23)..................................................................................43
JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI........................................... 43
CACDAC V. MERCADO............................................................................................ 44
EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)........................................................................................... 45
Key Concepts........................................................................................................................ 45
Admissibility; Relevance and Competence - Rule 128.................................................... 45
RE: JOHN MARK TAMAÑO.......................................................................................45
PEOPLE V. CAMPOS................................................................................................ 46
Kinds......................................................................................................................................47
Testimonial Evidence - Rule 130, C; Opinion - Sections 51-53....................................... 47
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. DAMPILAG......................................................... 47
TURALBA Y VILLEGAS V. PEOPLE......................................................................... 48
Presentation of Evidence.......................................................................................................49
STRONG FORT WAREHOUSING CORP. V. BANTA................................................49

6
 REMEDIAL LAW

Jurisdiction

Aspects of Jurisdiction

Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land, Inc.

G.R. No. 231290 | August 27, 2020

FACTS
Perfecto Velasquez, Jr. sued Lisondra Land Inc. for breach of contract before
the RTC but Lisondra moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction since
supposed violations of real estate trade and business practices are within the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board’s (HLURB) exclusive jurisdiction. Upon
denying Lisondra’s motion to dismiss, Lisondra filed a petition for certiorari
before CA which was granted and ordered the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction. When Velasquez re-filed the case with the HLURB, Lisondra argued
that RTC had jurisdiction over the case since the dispute is between joint
venture partners and is an intra-corporate controversy.

DOCTRINE
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority to hear, try, and decide a
case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose
of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. It
is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and not
by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous
belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court or tribunal has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the
action.

Nevertheless, a recognized exception to this rule is estoppel. The notion that the
defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel on the party invoking
it most prominently emerged in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy where the Supreme Court
held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.

7
 Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw

G.R. No. 225263 | March 16, 2022

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by
petitioners UR Employed International and Miguel against respondents
Pinmiliw, Pacya, Bastog and Ayochok. The petitioners in this case point to the
CA's alleged error in not declaring that the NLRC and the LA committed grave
abuse of discretion when they violated the doctrines of primary administrative
jurisdiction and immutability of judgment.

DOCTRINE
Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of prior resort, is the power and
authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body
to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction prevents the court from arrogating unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal
possessed with special competence. In some instances, an administrative body
is granted primary jurisdiction, concurrent with another government agency or
the regular court.

On the other hand, the doctrine of immutability of judgments provides that "all
the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a
judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the decision except to
order its execution.

8
 CIVIL PROCEDURE

Pleadings

Parties to Civil Actions - Rule 3

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 247787 | March 2, 2021

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 filed by petitioner
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) assailing respondent Commission on
Audit's (COA) Decision. On one hand, the DBP argued that the 1st COA Decision
is already final and executory without a motion for reconsideration or appeal
filed within 30 days from notice and that Pagaragan is a stranger to the case
and has no legal personality to move for a reconsideration. On the other hand,
the COA maintains that Pagaragan is a real party-in-interest because he is
concerned with the proper implementation of the DBP's compensation plan and
in ensuring that its funds are properly managed.

DOCTRINE

[PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3) - REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST

(SECTION 2)]

Judicial review may be exercised only when the person challenging the act has
the requisite legal standing, which refers to a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement. The party's interest must also be material as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. It must be
personal and not based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some
third and unrelated party.

9
In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as
contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The question as to real
party-in-interest is “whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured
by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.” Importantly,
standing, because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real
party in interest or has capacity to sue. Standing is a special concern in
constitutional law because cases are brought not by parties who have been
personally injured by the operation of a law. The plaintiff who asserts a "public
right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative
of the general public. Hence, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. The question in
standing is “whether such parties have ‘alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’"

[JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS - IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS (COA

DECISIONS)]

It is settled that all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the
Decision except to order its execution. The courts cannot modify the judgment
to correct perceived errors of law or fact. Public policy and sound practice
dictate that every litigation must come to an end at the risk of occasional
errors. This is the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment. The rule, however,
is subject to well-known exceptions, namely, the correction of clerical errors,
nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events.

10
 Parts and Contents; Formal Requirements - Rule 7

SPOUSES CORDERO V. OCTAVIANO

G.R. No. 241385 | July 7, 2020

FACTS
Leonila Octaviano filed an ejectment case against Spouses Cordero before the
MCTC which eventually ordered the spouses to vacate the premises. When the
RTC affirmed MTC’s decision, the spouses appealed to the CA through a petition
for review but the same was dismissed for failing to state the material date
showing when the RTC decision was received, thereby violating Section 2 (b),
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The spouses also failed to attach a clearly legible
duplicate original or true copy of the RTC decision as well as other pertinent
portions of the records necessary for a thorough evaluation of the case.

DOCTRINE

The rationale for requiring a complete statement of material dates is to

determine whether the petition is timely filed. Accordingly, the petition must
show when notice of the assailed judgment or order or resolution was received;
when the motion for reconsideration was filed; and, when notice of its denial
was received. However, this Court may relax strict observance of the rules to
advance substantial justice.

11
 Effect of Failure to Plead - Rule 9

VITARICH CORP. V. DAGMIL

G.R. No. 217138 | August 27, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Vitarich
against respondent Dagmil. Vitarich claimed that in issuing the default Order,
the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion, because respondent had
failed to file its answer within fifteen days after receiving the August 14, 1998
Order.

DOCTRINE

The rule is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed
before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. Where
the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is
declared in default and there is no showing that the defendant intends to delay
the case, the answer should be admitted. However, it is not mandatory on the
part of the trial court to admit an answer belatedly filed even though the
defendant is not declared in default. Settled is the rule that an answer belatedly
answered can only be admitted in the court's discretion, provided that there is
justification for such belated action.1

1
Note: Rule 11 Section 1 (Answer to the Complaint) should be read with Rule 9
Section 3 (Declaration of Default).

12
 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings - Rule 10

HEIRS OF TEJADA V. HAY

G.R. No. 250542 | October 10, 2022

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Heirs of
Tejada against respondent Hay represented by his attorney-in-fact Litong.
Petitioners argue that the CA erred in affirming the disallowance of the
Amended Answer because: (1) amendments to pleadings are favored at any
stage of the proceedings; (2) the Motion for Leave was filed before initial trial
and the case was still pending for mediation; and (3) the amendment was aimed
neither to delay the proceedings nor to prejudice respondent but to clarify
certain matters. Hay, on the other hand, maintains that the allowance of the
Amended Answer will only cause further delay in the proceedings as it contains
arguments already stated in the original Answer, albeit written "in a more
scholarly, formal and well-researched manner."

DOCTRINE
Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allow amendments to pleadings
"by adding to or striking out an inadequate allegation or description in any
other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be
determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner." The only limitation under the rules was that the leave to
amend the pleading "may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion
was made with intent to delay." Thus,as a matter of judicial policy, courts are
impelled to treat motions for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality
especially when such motion "is filed during the early stages of the proceedings
or, at least, before trial.

13
 Summons

Service of Summons

INTEGRATED MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. V. STANDARD

INSURANCE CO., INC.
G.R. No. 210302 | August 27, 2020

FACTS
This case is Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
Integrated Micro Electronics, Inc. (Integrated Micro) against respondent
Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard Insurance). Integrated Micro insists that
the service of summons upon the legal assistant or secretary of the insurer's
in-house counsel is considered substantial compliance since Standard Insurance
actually received the summons.

DOCTRINE

Service of summons upon the legal assistant of Standard Insurance's in-house

counsel is improper. Rule 14, Section 112 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides the
manner of serving summons to a corporation, thus:

Sec. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house
counsel.

2
Notably, this provision amended Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1964 Rules of Court
that allowed service to an agent of a corporation. The new rule, however, has
specifically identified and limited the persons to whom service of summons
must be made. Contrary to Integrated Micro's assertion, the amendment
effectively abandoned the substantial compliance doctrine and restricted the
persons authorized to receive summons for juridical entities.

14
 Judgments and Final Orders
SPOUSES POBLETE V. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND
MORTGAGE BANK
G.R. No. 228620 | June 15, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petitioner for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
Spouses Poblete against respondent Banco Filipino. Spouses Poblete argued
that the execution of judgment must include all its logical effects although not
expressed in the dispositive portion, yet the RTC and the CA interpreted the
Decision in a restrictive manner and disregarded its true meaning. In contrast,
Banco Filipino maintained that the RTC is correct in issuing a writ of execution
which is limited only to the dispositive portion and that the motion for issuance
of an alias writ of execution is a clear attempt of Spouses Poblete to modify a
final judgment.

DOCTRINE

The dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment may be amended to

rectify an inadvertent omission of what it should have logically decreed based
on the discussion in the body of the Decision. However, it should be limited to
explaining a vague or equivocal part of the judgment which hampers its proper
and full execution.

15
 PAGUIO V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (En Banc)
G.R. No. 223547 | April 27, 2021

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Engineer Alex Paguio (Paguio) et al.
against respondents Commission on Audit (COA) et al. Petitioners Paguio and
Angeline Aguilar (Aguilar) are officers of Pagsanjan Water District (PAGWAD),
while the rest of the petitioners were members of the PAGWAD Board of
Directors. At issue is whether petitioners’ appeal before the COA proper was
filed beyond the reglementary period.

DOCTRINE

The doctrine of immutability of judgments provides that a party to an original

action who fails to question an adverse judgment or decision by not filing the
proper remedy within the period prescribed by law, loses the right to do so, and
the judgment or decision, as to him or her, becomes final and binding. The
decision 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.

16
 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 247787 | March 2, 2021

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 filed by petitioner
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) assailing respondent Commission on
Audit's (COA) Decision. On one hand, the DBP argued that the 1st COA Decision
is already final and executory without a motion for reconsideration or appeal
filed within 30 days from notice and that Pagaragan is a stranger to the case
and has no legal personality to move for a reconsideration. On the other hand,
the COA maintains that Pagaragan is a real party-in-interest because he is
concerned with the proper implementation of the DBP's compensation plan and
in ensuring that its funds are properly managed.

DOCTRINE
[PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3) - REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
(SECTION 2)]

Judicial review may be exercised only when the person challenging the act has
the requisite legal standing, which refers to a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement. The party's interest must also be material as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. It must be
personal and not based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some
third and unrelated party.

In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as

contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The question as to real
party-in-interest is “whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured
by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.” Importantly,
standing, because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real
party in interest or has capacity to sue. Standing is a special concern in
constitutional law because cases are brought not by parties who have been
personally injured by the operation of a law. The plaintiff who asserts a "public
right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative
of the general public. Hence, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. The question in
standing is “whether such parties have ‘alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’"

17
[JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS - IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS (COA
DECISIONS)]

It is settled that all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the
Decision except to order its execution. The courts cannot modify the judgment
to correct perceived errors of law or fact. Public policy and sound practice
dictate that every litigation must come to an end at the risk of occasional
errors. This is the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment. The rule, however,
is subject to well-known exceptions, namely, the correction of clerical errors,
nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events. Not one of
these exceptions is present in this case.

18
 Remedies Before Finality of Judgment

Appeals and Other Modes of Review - Rules 40-45; Rule 64

SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION V. CENTRAL

AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC.
G.R. No. 253821 | 6 Mar 2023

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by
petitioner Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) against respondent Central
Azucarera De Bais Inc. (Central) questioning the Orders of the CA. On one hand,
SRA insists that the questions raised on appeal before the CA are factual in
nature; thus, it theorized that it availed of the proper remedy. In contrast,
Central maintained that the case before the RTC involved pure questions of law
and does not hinge upon factual proof and that the correct remedy to assail the
RTC's ruling is a petition for review on certiorari before the Court and not an
appeal to the CA; thus, the SRA's failure to avail the proper remedy within the
reglementary period rendered the RTC ruling final and executory.

DOCTRINE
Under the Rules of Court, there are three modes of appeal from RTC decisions:

First Mode (Rule 41): Through an ordinary appeal before the CA under Rule 41
where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC's original
jurisdiction. In ordinary appeals questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law may be raised.

Second Mode (Rule 42): Through a petition for review before the CA under Rule
42 where the decision assailed was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. In petitions for review, questions of fact, law, or mixed
questions of fact and law may be raised.

Third Mode (Rule 45): Through an appeal by certiorari before this Court under
Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised.

19
 AUSTRIA V AAA AND BBB
G.R. No. 205275 | June 28, 2022

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by Mamerto
Austria (Mamerto) against AAA and BBB (private complainants). Mamerto
invokes his right against double jeopardy; reiterates that the Joint Orders of
acquittal are already final and not subject to review; and maintains that private
complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal.

DOCTRINE
To guide the bench and the bar, these rules should be observed with respect to
the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:

1. The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil
liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or
her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition
for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private
offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in
the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the
resolution of the private complainant's appeal or petition for certiorari will
necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute
(i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction,
elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, identity of
the perpetrator of the crime, modification of penalty, and other questions
that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal
proceedings, or the nullification/reversal of the entire ruling, or cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle with the prosecution of the
offense, among other things). The comment of the OSG must state
whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended
party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the private
complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the
People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.

20
2. The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a
petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the
OSG's conformity.
The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementary period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. The private
complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG's conformity as
proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition
for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.

3. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private
complainant's petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in
criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial
of due process.

4. These guidelines shall be prospective in application.

21
 ANG V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 238203 | September 3, 2020

FACTS
This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against
women when a former boyfriend sent to the girl the picture of a naked woman,
not her, but with her face on it.

DOCTRINE
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is
merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to
appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the rules.

22
 COLLADO V. DELA VEGA
G.R. No. 219511 (Resolution) | December 2, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
Victoria Collado (Collado) against Dr. Eduardo Dela Vega (Dela Vega) assailing
the Decision of the CA. On one hand, Collado alleges that the CA should not
have disturbed the findings of the RTC which has the best opportunity to
observe the manner and demeanor of witnesses and that the funds she received
from Eduardo were meant for investment with the expectation, but without any
guarantee, of profit or return. On the other hand, Eduardo maintains that
Victoria raised factual issues which are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and that there is
preponderant evidence to establish Victoria's civil liability.

DOCTRINE
(REMEDIES BEFORE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT — APPEALS AND OTHER
MODES OF REVIEW – RULE 45)

Generally, it is not the Court's task to go over the proofs presented to ascertain
if they were weighed correctly. However, this rule of limited jurisdiction admits
exceptions and one of them is when the factual findings of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) are contradictory.

(PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111); CIVIL LIABILITY

EX-DELICTO; IN CASES OF ACQUITTAL (SEE ALSO CIVIL CODE, ART. 29)

As a rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. However, an

acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases:

1. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance

of evidence is required in civil cases;
2. Where the court declared that the accused's liability is not criminal, but
only civil in nature; and
3. Where the civil liability does not arise from, or is not based upon the
criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.

23
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY
OF SUGPON, ILOCOS SUR
G.R. No. 241370 | April 20, 2022

FACTS
In this case, respondent Sugpon asserted that only questions of law may be
raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Nonetheless, Bakun raised a factual question by asking the Court to re-examine
and weigh again the pieces of evidence presented by the parties to determine
what evidence satisfies the required quantum of proof of preponderance of
evidence.

DOCTRINE
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, only questions of law can be
raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
subject to limited exceptions. To successfully invoke these exceptions,
petitioners must prove the need for this Court to examine the lower court's
factual findings. Merely invoking an exception without proof will not warrant an
examination beyond the limits of Rule 45.

24
 Remedies After Judgment Becomes Final

Annulment of Judgment - Rule 47

Thomas v. Trono
G.R. No. 241032 (Resolution) | March 15, 2021

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the dismissal of
the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner Charnnel Shane
Thomas (Charnnel). Charnnel maintains that she was not afforded due process
when she was not allowed to participate in the proceedings for reconsideration
before the RTC.

DOCTRINE
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in
nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only
if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled was
rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction, or through extrinsic fraud. Under
Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment
are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however,
recognizes a third ground — denial of due process of law.

25
 Execution, Satisfaction, and Effects of Judgments (Rule 39)

CITY GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN V. COURT OF

APPEALS
G.R. No. 221554 (Resolution) | February 3, 2021

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner City
Government of Tacloban filed against public respondent CA and private
respondents Heirs of Sacramento. At issue in the case at bar was the propriety
of the CA’s action in applying the principle of res judicata in dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari filed in the CA.

DOCTRINE
The doctrine of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments lest
there would be endless controversies. The relitigation of issues already settled
burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and
wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthy causes. where
there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of
judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly
adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a
competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the
parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject
matter of the two actions is the same.

Note: Read this case in relation to Rule 39 Section 47 (Effect of Judgments or

Final Orders).

26
 PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. V. TIG
INSURANCE CO.
G.R. No. 256177 | June 27, 2022

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Pioneer
Insurance against TIG Insurance Company (Cleanwater’s successor-in-interest).
On one hand, Pioneer maintains that public policy against non-assertion of stale
claims was violated when the arbitral award was confirmed, recognized, and
enforced and that the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules provides that an
action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed, such as insurance
contract claims, shall be commenced within six years; thus, since Clearwater
only enforced its claims against Pioneer 16 years after Pioneer rejected
Clearwater's demand, the 6-year prescription period under the New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules had already set in.. On the other hand, TIG Insurance
asserted that Pioneer can no longer raise prescription because Rule 19.7 of the
Special ADR Rules prohibits a party from questioning the merits of the arbitral
award; that the award had long become final and executory when Pioneer failed
to file any petition to vacate it; and that public policy is best served if the
arbitral award is confirmed and enforced in the Philippines.

DOCTRINE

The Philippine court may only refuse to recognize or enforce a foreign arbitral
award when its enforcement would be against the fundamental tenets of justice
and morality, or would blatantly be injurious to the public, or the interests of the
society. Mere errors in the interpretation of the law or factual findings would not
suffice to warrant refusal of enforcement under the public policy ground. The
illegality or immorality of the award must reach a certain threshold such that
enforcement of the same would be against Our State's fundamental tenets of
justice and morality, or would blatantly be injurious to the public, or the
interests of the society.

Note: Read this case in relation to Rule 39 Section 48 (Effect of foreign

judgments or final orders)

27
 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Radio Philippines
Network, Inc.
G.R. No. 190517 | July 27, 2022

FACTS

The propriety of the order of execution of a money judgment is the core issue in
this Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Metropolitan Bank
against respondents Radio Philippines and Banahaw Broadcasting assailing the
Court of Appeals Decision.

DOCTRINE

Under the rules, the executing officer is required to first demand from the
judgment debtors the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ
of execution and all lawful fees. The executing officer shall demand the
payment either in cash, certified bank check or any other mode of payment that
is acceptable to the judgment creditor. If the judgment debtors cannot pay the
judgment obligation using these methods, they can opt to choose which among
their personal properties can be levied upon. If the judgment debtors do not
exercise this option immediately or when they are absent or cannot be located,
they then waive such right and the executing officer can levy the judgment
debtors' personal properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal
properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. The executing officer
may also levy personal property by garnishment by reaching credits belonging
to the judgment debtors and owing to them from a stranger to the litigation. In
this mode of satisfying the judgment known as garnishment, the executing
officer levies on the debts due the judgment debtors including bank deposits,
financial interests, royalties, commissions, and other personal property not
capable of manual delivery in the possession or under the control of third
parties. The levy may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or
part of the obligation in cash or in such other manner acceptable to the
judgment obligee.

28
 Provisional Remedies

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order - Rule 58

DE LIMA V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. Nos. 199972 & 206118 | August 15, 2022

FACTS
This case involves, among other, the CA’s issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction which provisionally restrained the implementation of the Joint
Memorandum.

DOCTRINE
Judicial courtesy is neither a substitute nor a ground for the issuance of a WPI
under the Rules. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary
injunction may be granted when it is established:

1. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or
part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance
of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act
or acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
2. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
3. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is
attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject
of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.

Judicial courtesy is exercised by suspending the proceedings before a lower

court, even without an injunction or an order to that effect from a higher court,
to avoid mooting the matter raised before the higher court. Such exercise is
merely as a matter of respect and practical considerations. Whereas, the
issuance of a WPI, although it also preserves the status quo, does not suspend
the proceedings in the main case. It only prevents the threatened or continuous
irremediable injury to the party who has a clear legal right, entitled to be
judicially protected during the pendency of the main case. Courts are
consistently reminded that the power to issue the writ "should be exercised
sparingly, with the utmost care, and with great caution and deliberation." A WPI
may be issued only upon showing of a clear and positive right.

29
 SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65)

PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 244374 (Resolution) | February 15, 2022

FACTS
In this case, petitioner PPCI asserted that the CA gravely erred in giving due
course to Renato's petition for certiorari despite being filed out of time or
beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The same was allegedly filed fourteen
(14) days late.

DOCTRINE
As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty
(60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for
reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period
within which to file a petition for certiorari, save in exceptional or meritorious
cases anchored on special or compelling reasons.

30
 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)
GALACGAC V. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 221384 (Resolution) | November 9, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioner
Benigno Galagcac (Benigno) filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent
Reynaldo Bautista (Reynaldo). However, Benigno was not able to fully
substantiate his supposed acts of tolerance from the start of the occupation.

DOCTRINE
The court may dismiss a complaint for unlawful detainer based on lack of cause
of action if the plaintiff's supposed act of tolerance is not present right from the
start of the defendant's possession.

31
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL
WRITS

KAIZEN BUILDERS, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 226894 & 247647 | September 3, 2020

FACTS
Kaizen Builders, petitioner, defaulted on its payments to its obligation with
Ofelia Ursais (Ursais), prompting the latter to file a complaint for a sum of
money. The RTC ruled in favor of Ursais and ordered Kaizen Builders to pay.
Kaizen builders went to the Court of Appeals and filed for corporate
rehabilitation, during which, a rehabilitation court issued a Commencement
Order, suspending all actions for the enforcement of claims against Kaizen
Builders.

DOCTRINE
The suspension of claims during corporate rehabilitation proceedings takes
precedence over other legal actions, and courts must respect and adhere to
stay orders issued by rehabilitation courts to promote the orderly administration
of justice.

32
 Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons
GOZUM V. PAPPAS
G.R. No. 197147 (Resolution) | February 3, 2021

FACTS
This case involves the appointment of an administrator in the estate of
Edmundo Cea and Gloria Novelo (Gloria). When Gloria died intestate, Salvio
Fortuno (Salvio) was named as the executor of the estate. Her daughter, Norma
filed an omnibus motion to revoke Salvio’s appointment as special administrator
of Gloria’s estate and to appoint herself instead, which was approved by the
court.

DOCTRINE
The appointment of a special administrator is within the discretion of the
probate court, and the court may consider factors other than those enumerated
in the rules for regular administrators. The special administrator is an officer of
the court and is subject to the court’s supervision and control. The appointment
of a special administrator may be revoked if the person appointed fails to
perform their duties or if their appointment is no longer necessary.

33
 Change of Name (Rule 103)
REPUBLIC V. MALIGAYA
G.R. No. 233068 | November 9, 2020

FACTS
Merly Maligaya (Merly) filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth
certificate under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC, to change her
first name from "MERLE" to "MERLY" and her date of birth from "February 15,
1959" to "November 26, 1958. After trial, the RTC granted the petition, despite
Merly having failed to implead persons who have a claim or any interest in the
proceedings, with respect to her date of birth. The OSG moved for
reconsideration on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction to rectify the
error in Merly's first name because the mistake is clerical that must be corrected
through administrative proceedings under Republic Act (RA) No. 9048, as
amended by RA No. 10172.

DOCTRINE
The term "substantial" means consisting of or relating to substance, or
something that is important or essential. In relation to change or correction of
an entry in the birth certificate, substantial refers to that which establishes, or
affects the substantive right of the person on whose behalf the change or
correction is being sought. Thus, changes which may affect the civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, civil status, or citizenship of a person
are substantial in character.

34
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry (Rule 108; R.A. 9048, as amended by
R.A. No. 10172)
REPUBLIC V. ONTUCA Y PELEÑO
G.R. No. 232053 | July 15, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for the
correction of civil status of Anabelle Ontuca, for her to appear not married, and
of the name of her daughter, in the latter’s birth certificate. The trial court then
granted the petition. The petitioner Republic moved for reconsideration, arguing
that RTC has no jurisdiction to correct Annabelle's first name and middle name
under Rule 108 because the errors are clerical that can be corrected through
administrative proceedings under Republic Act (RA) No. 9048, as amended and
that the change in the date and place of marriage is substantial, thus the OSG
should have been impleaded.

DOCTRINE

The term "substantial" means consisting of or relating to substance, or

something that is important or essential. In relation to change or correction of
an entry in the birth certificate, substantial refers to that which establishes, or
affects the substantive right of the person on whose behalf the change or
correction is being sought. Thus, changes which may affect the civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, civil status, or citizenship of a person,
are substantial in character. The correction of entries in the civil register
pertaining to citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage involves substantial alterations, which may be corrected, and the true
facts established, provide the parties aggrieved by the error to avail themselves
of the appropriate adversary proceedings.

35
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)

AUSTRIA v. AAA
G.R. No. 205275 | June 28, 2022

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by Mamerto
Austria (Mamerto) against AAA and BBB (private complainants). Mamerto
invokes his right against double jeopardy; reiterates that the Joint Orders of
acquittal are already final and not subject to review; and maintains that private
complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal.

DOCTRINE

To guide the bench and the bar, these rules should be observed with respect to
the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:

1. The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil
liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or
her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition
for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private
offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in
the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the
resolution of the private complainant's appeal or petition for certiorari will
necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute
(i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction,
elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, identity of
the perpetrator of the crime, modification of penalty, and other questions
that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal
proceedings, or the nullification/reversal of the entire ruling, or cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle with the prosecution of the
offense, among other things). The comment of the OSG must state
whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended
party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the private
complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the
People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.

36
2. The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a
petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the
OSG's conformity.

3. The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementary period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. The private
complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG's conformity as
proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition
for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private
complainant's petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in
criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial
of due process.

4. These guidelines shall be prospective in application.

37
 Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)

Civil Liability Ex-delicto; In cases of Acquittal (See also Civil Code, Art.
36)

COLLADO V. DE VEGA
G.R. No. 219511 (Resolution) | December 2, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
Victoria Collado (Collado) against Dr. Eduardo Dela Vega (Dela Vega) assailing
the Decision of the CA. On one hand, Collado alleges that the CA should not
have disturbed the findings of the RTC which has the best opportunity to
observe the manner and demeanor of witnesses and that the funds she received
from Eduardo were meant for investment with the expectation, but without any
guarantee, of profit or return. On the other hand, Eduardo maintains that
Victoria raised factual issues which are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and that there is
preponderant evidence to establish Victoria's civil liability.

DOCTRINE
As a rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. However, an
acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases:

1. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance

of evidence is required in civil cases;
2. Where the court declared that the accused's liability is not criminal, but
only civil in nature; and
3. Where the civil liability does not arise from, or is not based upon the
criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.

38
 Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)

Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause - Sections 2-4

MACASIL V. FRAUD AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION

OFFICE-COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 226898 (Resolution) | May 11, 2021

Note: Also see Criminal Law Doctrine as Regards Falsification

under Article 171 of the RPC

FACTS
This is a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) filed by petitioner Joel Macasil (Macasil)
against respondents Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) - Commission
On Audit (COA), Public Assistance And Corruption Prevention Office
Ombudsman - Visayas Regional Office No. VIII, and the Office of the
Ombudsman (Visayas) assailing the Office of the Ombudsman's Consolidated
Resolution finding prima facie case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and Falsification.

DOCTRINE
Probable cause for filing a criminal information constitutes facts sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof. When at the outset the existence of
probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot
be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the
trauma of going through a trial.

39
 Arrest, Search, and Seizures

Search Warrant - Rule 126; Lawful Warrantless Arrest - Rule 113, Sec. 5

SULLANO Y SANTIA V. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 232147 | June 8, 2020

FACTS
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by
petitioner-accused Arturo, who was charged with violation of the gun ban
during the 2010 election period pursuant to BP Blg. 881. Arturo questions the
legality of his warrantless arrest to dispel the jurisdiction of the court over his
person. Notably, Arturo entered his plea during arraignment and actively
participated in the trial, and did not move to quash the information on the
grounds of illegality of his arrest.

DOCTRINE
The Court has consistently held that any objection by an accused to an arrest
without a warrant must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. An accused may be estopped from assailing the
illegality of his arrest if he fails to challenge the information against him before
his arraignment. And, since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction
of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in his arrest may be
deemed cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court.

40
 Bail (Rule 114); Recognizance Act of 2012 (R.A.
No. 10389)
PEOPLE V. NAPOLES
G.R. No. 247611 | January 13, 2021

FACTS
Napoles was convicted of Plunder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Pending the resolution of her appeal, having been detained
in the Correctional Institute for Women (CIW), Napoles filed an Urgent Motion
for Recognizance/Bail or House Arrest for Humanitarian Reasons due to
COVID-19. She alleged that she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the
prison due to her Diabetes.

DOCTRINE
The presumption of innocence and the Constitutional right to bail end after the
accused's conviction of a capital offense. Indeed, under the Rules of Court,
upon the accused’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a non-capital
offense, admission to bail is discretionary. However, when the penalty imposed
on the accused exceeds six years, and any of the bail-negating circumstances
exists, the accused’s application for bail must be denied or canceled.

41
 Motion to Quash Information (Rule 117)

Double Jeopardy - Section 7

JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI

G.R. No. 236618 | August 27, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
JCLV Realty against respondent Mangali. JCLV Realty contends that the
authority of the OSG applies only in ordinary appeals and that the private
complainant can file a special civil action for certiorari to question the criminal
and civil aspect of the case; yet, the CA mistook its petition as an ordinary
appeal. On the other hand, Mangali maintains that JCLV Realty has no legal
standing to file certiorari proceedings because the reliefs sought directly affects
the criminal aspect of the case; hence, the OSG's consent is necessary.

DOCTRINE
The right against double jeopardy is a constitutional right deeply rooted in
jurisprudence. The doctrine has several avowed purposes. Primarily, it prevents
the State from using its criminal processes as an instrument of harassment to
wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also
serves the additional purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal,
from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction.
And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, from retrying the
defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. Double jeopardy,
therefore, provides three related protections:

1. Against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal,

2. Against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and
3. Against multiple punishments for the same offense.

The constitutional mandate is a rule of finality. A single prosecution for any

offense is all the law allows. It protects an accused from harassment, enables
him to treat what had transpired as a closed chapter in his life, either to exult in
his freedom or to be resigned to whatever penalty is imposed, and is a bar to
unnecessary litigation, in itself time-consuming and expense- producing for the
State as well. The ordeal of a criminal prosecution is inflicted only once, not
whenever it pleases the state to do so.

The inviolability of the right of the accused against double jeopardy is reflected
in the skeptical attitude taken by the Supreme Court towards petitions for
certiorari disputing decisions acquitting an accused.

42
 Trial (Rule 119)

Demurrer to Evidence (Section 23)

JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI

G.R. No. 236618 | August 27, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
JCLV Realty against respondent Mangali. Through this Petition, JCLV
questioned the Order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case.

DOCTRINE

A private complainant cannot question the Order granting the demurrer to

evidence in a criminal case absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due
process. The interest of the offended party is limited only to the civil aspect of
the case.

43
 CACDAC V. MERCADO
G.R. No. 242731 | June 14, 2021

FACTS
During the proceedings of the case, Cacdac filed a demurrer to evidence
[without leave of court], which partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the
case for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Cacdac asserts that he was not afforded the chance to present counter
evidence on his civil liability after his demurrer on the criminal aspect of the
case was granted.

DOCTRINE
Particularly, a demurrer to evidence may be filed with or without leave of court,
each having different effects on the right of the accused to present evidence.
Under the rules, it is explicit that if the court denies the demurrer filed with
leave of court, the accused may still adduce counter evidence on the criminal
and civil aspects of the case. Jurisprudence likewise explains that if the court
grants the demurrer filed with leave of court resulting in the dismissal of the
criminal action, the accused may still adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the
case.

On the other hand, when a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court,
the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the whole case
based on the evidence for the prosecution. The trial court is called upon to
decide the criminal case including its civil aspect. The remedy of demurrer to
evidence now carries a caveat to prevent it from being used to delay the
proceedings.

44
 EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

Key Concepts

Admissibility; Relevance and Competence - Rule 128

RE: JOHN MARK TAMAÑO

A.C. No. 12274 (Resolution) | October 7, 2020

FACTS
An administrative case was filed against Atty. John Mark Tamaño for his failure
to record in his notarial books United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association’s
(UCSPAI) General Information Sheets (GIS) in violation of the Notarial Rules.
Thus, his notarial commission got revoked. Atty. Tamaño claimed that UCSPAI
benefited from the notarization because the SEC required submission of
notarized GIS.

DOCTRINE
Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due
execution. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents,
notaries public must ensure proper recording of documents in their notarial
registers, lest, falsely making it appear that they were notarized when in fact
they were not;the confidence of the public in the integrity of documents will be
undermined.

45
 PEOPLE V. CAMPOS
G.R. No. 252212 | July 14, 2021

FACTS
Appellants pray for the reversal of their conviction alleging that the prosecution
failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They claim that the
stabbing of the victim was done in self-defense. They take exception to the
finding of the trial court regarding the presence of conspiracy asserting that the
mere presence of Bingky at the scene of the crime does not prove the existence
of conspiracy.

DOCTRINE
Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the burden of
proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However,
once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a
justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He
cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is
weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing.
This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order.

Note: Correlate this case with the concept of Self-Defense as a Justifying

Circumstance (Art. 11, RPC [par. 1])

46
 Kinds

Testimonial Evidence - Rule 130, C; Opinion - Sections 51-53

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. DAMPILAG

G.R. No. 238774 | June 10, 2020

FACTS
This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner
CSC against respondent Dampilag. One of the contentions raised in this case
was the absence of a handwriting expert in this case involving forged
documents.

DOCTRINE
In Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that due to the
technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of the forged
documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful;
however, resort to questioned document examiners is not mandatory and while
probably useful, they are not indispensable in examining or comparing
handwriting. Besides, when the dissimilarity between the genuine and false
specimens of writing is visible to the naked eye, resort to technical rules is no
longer necessary.

47
 TURALBA Y VILLEGAS V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 216453 | March 16, 2022

FACTS
Oligario was convicted of carnapping. The RTC and the CA did not give
credence to the medical assessment of the mental condition of Oligario by Dr.
Evangelista, who attested to his illness, and mentioned in the Clinical Summary
that his “condition could lead to unusual behavior, faulty judgment, irrational
thoughts, impulsive acts, and break from reality.”

DOCTRINE
To establish insanity, opinion testimony is required which may be given by a
witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused, has rational basis to
conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception, or is
qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.

48
 Presentation of Evidence
STRONG FORT WAREHOUSING CORP. V. BANTA
G.R. No. 222369 & 222502 (Resolution) | November 16, 2020

FACTS
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Strong
Fort against respondent Banta concerning the validity of real estate mortgage
contracts involved. Strong Fort contends that the CA erred in not reversing the
trial court when it admitted Remedios' rebuttal evidence that had been
expunged from the records, such as the NBI's QDR and the PNP Crime
Laboratory Report. Corollarily, since the NBI's QDR and the PNP Crime
Laboratory Report had been expunged, the opinions of handwriting experts,
Arcadio Ramos and Florenda Negre regarding the said documents become
mere hearsay and baseless.

DOCTRINE
While it is settled that resort to handwriting experts is not indispensable in the
finding of forgery, their opinions are useful and may serve as additional
evidence to buttress the claim of forgery. Owing to their special knowledge and
training, they can help determine fundamental, significant differences in writing
characteristics between the questioned and the standard or sample specimen
signatures, as well as the movement and manner of execution strokes.

49