SAN BEDA COLLEGE - ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2022

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

HANNAH KEZIAH T. MORALES

Chairperson for Academics

ANDREA JOSES P. TAN ADRIAN R. MACASAQUIT

Deputy Deputy

ELOISA FE C. BUÑO
Chairperson for Electronic Data Processing

SUBJECT HEADS

MARY GRACE B. DOMINGUEZ PAMELA A. PAEZ

Civil Law Legal and Judicial Ethics

DAVID GABRIEL V. PALLASIGUE BRIANT ALLEN S. ROSARIO

Criminal Law Mercantile Law

KARLA MARIE V. GABRIEL JOSHUA REED C. LOPEZ

Labor Law Political Law

JUSTINN ANTONIO ALON ALEXANDRE JANUS B. BIDO

Remedial Law Taxation Law

ASSISTANT HEADS

DAVE CHRISTIAN C. UMERAN MARIA ARIELLE SAMANTHA T. ALVAREZ

Civil Law Legal and Judicial Ethics

MAEIA MIKHAELA N. MAYUGA HANNAH MIKAELLA C. YAMIT

Criminal Law Mercantile Law

MIGUEL JULIO RAFAEL SORIANO III JESSICA LAURA C. SY

Labor Law Political Law

LANCE LIZOR A. PUNZALAN JAN EROS NIKE V. CABAUATAN

Remedial Law Taxation Law
REMEDIAL LAW TEAM

JUSTINN ANTONIO ALON

SUBJECT HEAD

LANCE LIZOR A. PUNZALAN

ASSISTANT HEAD

ERIELLE JOSHUA JONAH G. AGUSTIN

SARAH MAE G. ALCAZAREN
BERNICE MARIE S. ANGELES
RHOMA B. ARCIAGA
HOSNI AYO
NELLY RAE CAROLINE U. CASTRO
CHARISSE IVA R. CORTEZ
FATIMA GUILLIAN S. DE GALA
MARIA ALYSSSA BEATRIZ F. DEYTO
ANDREA NICOLE V. FABREGAS
JALIECA GADONG
GONZALO C. GARCIA
JEANETTE ELAINE I. GESMUNDO
CORINE ELIZABETH O. HERNANDEZ
FAITH LANSANGAN
ANDREI A. MANUEL
HANZ CHRISTIAN MIRAFLOR
JOIE M. NATO OASAN
WENDY LOUISE M.
KASSANDRA CAYE L. PACA
CARLO ALEXDAVE S. PURAY
CELINE ANNE PURIFICACION
MARIELLE L. RICOHERMOSO
GIELENE M. RIVERA
NOEL JETHRO III M. ROLLO
MARIA GENEVIEVE C. SAMONTE
CHARMAINE GRACE M. SIRON
MA. CHELCA UBAY
ADMINISTRATION

DR. ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III

Dean

ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE

Vice Dean

ATTY. MA. ELIZA YAMAMOTO-SANTOS

Prefect of Student Affairs

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

Administrative Officer

ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III

Adviser

SAN BEDA COLLEGE - ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2022
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

KATHLEEN L. CAPULONG
Over-All-Chairperson

HANNAH KEZIAH T. MORALES ELOISA FE C. BUÑO

Chairperson for Academics Chairperson for Electronic Data Processing

LOUIE ANN S. SOMEROS ROZELLE DIANNE I. MATEO

Chairperson for Operations Chairperson for Secretariat

JOSEPH M. LIBROJO ROLEEN WENDEE N. GUINTO

Chairperson for Academic Operations Chairperson for Bar Matters

JULIUS ROBERT A. JUICO EDWARD JAYSON B. SANTILLAN

Chairperson for Communications Chairperson for Logistics

FEMME ANGELA C. ARMAMENTO JOSHUA REED C. LOPEZ

Chairperson for Finance Chairperson for Recruitment and Membership

ANNA MARIE N. OBESO

Chairperson for Bar Mentoring Program
NOTICE

This work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2022. 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 2022
is strictly prohibited.

Material includes both cases penned by Justice Caguioa and recent landmark
cases decided by the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2022
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2022
All Rights Reserved by the Authors.
REMEDIAL LAW
CASE DOCTRINESS FOR THE 2022 BAR EXAMINATIONS

CIVIL PROCEDURE 1
Republic vs. Capital Resources Corp. 1

Republic Of The Philippines vs. Alfredo R. De Borja 1

Yap v. Lagtapon 2

Chua v. Sps. Santiago 2

Republic v. Alvin C. Dimarucot 3

Michael V. Racion v. MST Marine Services Philippines, Inc., Alfonso Ranjo Del Castillo and/or
Thome Ship Management PTE. LTD. 4

Pimentel v. Adiao 4

Pfleider v. Court of Appeals 5

Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Hon. Mendoza 5

Heirs of Francisco v. CA 6

Arinola v. Almodiel 7

Pillars Property Corp. v. Century Communities Corp. 7

Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. v. Gabae 8

United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Sy 8

Dizon v. Matti 9

Yu v. Miranda 9

Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. v. Heirs of Cabotaje 10

Cabuguas v. Tan Nery 11

Young Builders Corp. v. Benson Industries Inc. 12

Prime Savings Bank v. Sps. Santos 12

Trade And Investment Development Corporation Vs Philippine Veterans Bank 13

Republic v. Heirs of Paus 14

MR Holdings, Inc. And Marcopper Mining Corporation Vs. Rolando A. De Jesus 14

Montero v. Montero, Jr. 15

Fernando v. Paguyo 15
Prescilla v. Lasquite 16

Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp. 17

Spouses Rebamonte v. Spouses Lucero 17

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. Heirs of Marcos 18

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 18
Jona Bumatay v. Lolita Bumatay 18

People v. Bongbonga y Nalos 19

People v. Macasaet 19

People v. Reyes y Paulina 21

Dominguez y Argana v. People 21

People v. Lumahang y Talisay 22

Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi 23

People v. Aseniero 23

Pili v. Resurreccion 24

People v. Enriquez, Jr. 24

Del Rosario v. People 25

Javier v. Sandiganbayan 25

Mathay v. People 26

EVIDENCE 27
People v. Gerola y Amar 27

People v. Hesson Callao 27

Ready Form Inc. v. Castillon, Jr. 28

People v. Callejo 29

People v. Sood 29

People of the Philippines v. Jennifer Ga-a y Coronado, Aquila “Payat” Adobar 30

Hilario B. Aliling v. People of the Philippines 30

People of the Philippines v. Gerry Agramon 31

People of the Philippines vs XXX 31

PNP v Villafuerte 32

People v. Mercado y Anticla 32

People v. Espejo y Rizaldo 33

People v. Guro y Combo 33

Tuates y Chico v. People 34

Sepe v. Heirs Of Kilang 35

RCBC Bankard Services Corporation v. Oracion 35

Paz Mandin-Trotin v. Francisco A. Bongo et al 36

Paulo Jackson Polangcos y Francisco, Vs. People Of The Philippines 36

XXX v. People 37

People v. Fayo y Rubio 38

People v. Vertudes 38

People v. Gabiosa, Sr. 39

Tañamor y Acibo v. People 39

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS 40

PH Bank of Communications vs. CA 40

Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission 41

Philippine Ports Authority v. Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. 42

Public Attorney's Office v. Office of The Ombudsman And Atty. Terencia S. Erni-Rivera 43

Medina vs Spouses Lozada 43

Gatchalian vs Ombudsman 44

Recto v. People 44

Local Government Unit of San Mateo, Isabela v. Miguel Vda. De Guerrero 45

Spouses Pozon v. Lopez 46

Davao ACF Bus Lines v. Ang 46

Fajardo v. Cua-Malate 47

NTC v. Bermuda Development Corp. 48

BDO Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Great Domestic Insurance Company of The Philippines, Inc. 48

Mandagan v. Jose M. Valero Corporation 49

Spouses Rodriguez v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 50

Bernardo v. Soriano 50

Heirs of Sadhwani v. Sadhwani 51

Republic v. Macabagdal 52
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Republic vs. Capital Resources Corp.

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 217210 November 7, 2016

SUMMARY
The defendants, Capital Resources Corporation (CRC) and Romeo Roxas, bought
a parcel of land from the spouses Milo. The RTC ruled in favor of the Republic who then
filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration citing inconsistencies among the documents
and that the CRC is ineligible to be an owner under the Public Land Act. When it was
ignored because neither of these issues were mentioned in the complaint or the pre-
trial order, upon appeal the Republic cited these two issues again by citing the Motion
for Partial Reconsideration.

DOCTRINE
Issues not timely raised in the proceedings before the lower court are barred by
estoppel. As a rule, new issues can no longer be considered by the appellate court
because a party is not permitted to change his theory on appeal; to allow him to do so
would be offensive to the rules of fair play, justice and due process.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Republic Of The Philippines vs. Alfredo R. De Borja

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 187448 January 9, 2017

SUMMARY
It appears from the records that PNOC would regularly enter into charter
agreements with vessels and, pursuant to industry practice, vessel owners would pay
"address commissions" to PNOC as charterer, amounting to five percent (5%) of the total
freight wherein during the tenure of Velasco, allegedly, no address commissions were
remitted to PNOC.

Petitioner Republic claimed that it was De Borja who collected these address
commissions on behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the testimony of Epifanio F.
Veranoa witness for petitioner Republic. De Borja was further alleged to have acted as
Velasco's dummy, nominee, and/or agent for corporations he owned and/or controlled,
such as DRMC.

Respondent De Borja filed his Demurrer to Evidence. The SB rendered a Decision

dismissing Civil Case No. 0003 with respect to the remaining respondents therein. This,
in turn, was subject of an appeal before Supreme Court.

1
DOCTRINE
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence
produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make
out a case or sustain an issue. The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the
plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, had been able to establish a prima facie case.

In a demurrer to evidence, however, it is premature to speak of "preponderance

of evidence" because it is filed prior to the defendant's presentation of evidence; it is
precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to expeditiously terminate the case
without the need of the defendant's evidence. Hence, what is crucial is the
determination as to whether the plaintiff's evidence entitles it to the relief sought.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Yap v. Lagtapon
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.196347 January 23, 2017

SUMMARY
A civil suit for collection of sum of money was filed against petitioner before the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental.

Summons was served by Ray R. Precioso (Precioso) on petitioner Yap, who

refused to acknowledge receipt thereof.

As no answer was filed, respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default

which was granted by the court and later rendered the decision in favor of respondent.

DOCTRINE
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is an aid to
the effective and unhampered administration of government functions. Without such
benefit, every official action could be negated with minimal effort from litigants,
irrespective of merit or sufficiency of evidence to support such challenge.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Chua v. Sps. Santiago

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 219309 November 22, 2017

SUMMARY
Jose, Santiago and Petra are the registered owners of two parcels of land
situated in Iloilo city. Partition of the land were demanded by Sps. Santiago which was
left unheeded. On petition for certiorari, the petitioners asserted that Jose, reserved
the right to present additional witnesses in his pre-trial brief. By completely ignoring

2
such reservation made by Jose, they aver that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE
The rules governing pre-trial remain controlling in this case. The importance of
pre-trial procedure as a means of facilitating the disposal of cases by simplifying or
limiting the issues and avoiding unnecessary proof of facts at the trial, and to do
whatever may be reasonably necessary to facilitate and shorten the formal trial.

This is not to say, however, that the rules governing pre-trial should be, at all
times, applied in absolute terms. Compliance with these rules may be relaxed in cases
where their application would frustrate rather than facilitate the ends of justice. This
relaxation, however, is contingent upon a showing of compelling and persuasive reasons
to justify the same.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Republic v. Alvin C. Dimarucot

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 202069 March 7, 2018

SUMMARY
Respondents met sometime in 2002 and became friends. This friendship
immediately progressed and turned into an intimate romantic relationship.

It appears, however, that Respondents' whirlwind romance resulted in a

problematic marriage, as Alvin filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage (RTC Petition) before the RTC on September 22, 2009.

The CA held that the CA Petition warrants outright dismissal because it was filed
without the benefit of a motion for reconsideration

DOCTRINE
The State's policy of upholding the sanctity of marriage takes precedence over
strict adherence to Rule 15, for the finality of the RTC Decision necessarily entails the
permanent severance of Alvin and Nailyn's marital ties. Hence, the RTC should have
exercised its discretion, as it did have such discretion, and set the MR for hearing on a
later date with due notice to the parties to allow them to fully thresh out the Republic's
assigned errors. The CA thus erred when it affirmed the RTC in this respect.

───※ ·❆· ※───

3
Michael V. Racion v. MST Marine Services Philippines, Inc.,
Alfonso Ranjo Del Castillo and/or Thome Ship Management PTE.
LTD.
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.219291 July 4, 2018

SUMMARY
Petitioner filed a petition for disability benefits, refund of medical expenses,
sickness allowances, damages, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter for his left
knee ligament strain caused by an accident in the workplace. The LA dismissed the
petition. Thereafter, the NLRC rendered a decision, ordering respondent to only pay the
former Php 50,000 as financial assistance. This prompted petitioner to file a petition for
certiorari before the CA. The appellate court dismissed the petition outright because it
was petitioner's counsel who signed the certificate on non-forum shopping, without
authority from petitioner through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), and without any
explanation for petitioner's failure to execute the certificate. The CA also ruled that
petitioner failed to comply with paragraph 1, Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
when he failed to indicate his own actual address and that of respondent Del Castillo.

DOCTRINE
Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter
of right. Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules
laid down by law.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Pimentel v. Adiao
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 222678 October 15, 2018

SUMMARY
Petitioner Joanne filed with the RTC a complaint for damages against
respondents Reynaldo Adiao (Reynaldo), Christian Adiao (Christian) and Cristy Adiao-
Nierves (Cristy).

Joanna pleaded that the rule on the timely submission of the PT brief be
interpreted liberally in her favor and that the adverse parties also violated Section 6,
Rule 18 in that they failed to attach relevant documents thereto and were late in filing
their PT briefs. The RTC denied Joanna's motion for reconsideration. Joanna appealed
the dismissal of the case to the CA which also denied the appeal.

DOCTRINE
Failure to file a Pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at
the Pre-trial. However, litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Suits should as
much as possible be decided on the merits. Thus, the court is empowered to suspend its
4
operation when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the
ends of justice.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Pfleider v. Court of Appeals

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 196058 November 12, 2018

SUMMARY
[Petitioner] Pfleider and [respondent Pfleider-Alba] are siblings and among the
compulsory heirs of Fred G. Pfleider ("Fred") and Luisa Sanz-Pfleider ("Luisa"). During his
lifetime, Fred acquired several pieces of real property. Petitioner, as compulsory heir
and pursuant to an approved Project of Partition, inherited parcels of land from Fred.
Those parcels of land were used as collaterals in the Real Estate Mortgage ("REM") in
favor of the Philippine National Bank, executed by Fred during his lifetime.

Relevant thereto, respondent informed petitioner that he should accomplish a

Deed of Quitclaim over all the foreclosed properties since PNB required its execution.
Petitioner, after much hesitation but upon receipt respondent’s letter reassuring him
that he would not be prejudiced by the quitclaim, signed it. Petitioner was shocked
when he learned that TCT No. T-2070016 consolidating the entire lot was registered in
the name of respondent. Hence, the filing of the complaint in the RTC Kabankalan.

The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal outright.The CA found that petitioner’s

appeal raised pure questions of law, involving the application of the concept of litis
pendentia in the instant case due to the pendency of Civil Case.

DOCTRINE
The Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal, using mandatory language, in
establishing the rule that an appeal raising pure questions of law erroneously taken to
the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court, but shall be dismissed outright.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Hon. Mendoza

CAGUIOA, J.
AM No. RTJ 18-2538 December 21, 2018

SUMMARY
PI TWO is a corporation which operates as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
created under Republic Act No. 9182, otherwise known as the Special Purpose Vehicle
Act of 2002, empowered to acquire or purchase assets from banking and financial
institutions. The Heirs of Nuesa alleged in their Complaint that the Subject Property,
originally belonged to their father, Wilson Nuesa (Nuesa).

5
PI TWO filed the instant administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law
and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, assailing the judiciousness of the
following orders issued by respondent Judge Mendoza: September 20, 2017 TRO,
September 25, 2017 Order extending the TRO up to October 12, 2017; and the November
29, 2017 Order granting Heirs of Nuesa's Motion to Substitute Cash Bond with an
Injunction Bond.

DOCTRINE
Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules, as bolstered by Administrative Circular No. 20-
95, is explicit that the adverse party should be immediately served with the summons
and a copy of the complaint.

Judge Mendoza's failure to serve the summons on PI TWO after the issuance of
the assailed 72-hour TRO cannot be cured by his claim that it was received by the sheriff,
the person enjoined from implementing the writ of possession.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Heirs of Francisco v. CA
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 215599 November 28, 2018

SUMMARY
Petitioners, Heirs of Francisco filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title,
Reconveyance of Real Property and Damages with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court against the
private respondents herein Wellington Velasco (Velasco) and Dr. Emiliano Torralba
(Torralba).

The CA dismissed the petitioners Heirs of Francisco's appeal for lack of merit.
However, in the assailed Resolution, the CA found that petitioners Heirs of Francisco's
Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 6, 2013. Hence, the CA denied
outright the petitioners Heirs of Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration, "considering
that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible." Consequently,
the CA directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue "an Entry of Judgment

DOCTRINE
In order for a Certiorari petition to prosper, the abuse of discretion alleged must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion
and hostility.

Filing via private courier or courier service is NOT a manner of filing allowed or
recognized by the Rules of Court.

6
───※ ·❆· ※───

Arinola v. Almodiel
CAGUIOA, J.
A.M. No. P-19-3925 January 7, 2019

SUMMARY
Complainant, Asuncion Y. Ariñola (Complainant) along with her husband, was the
plaintiff in an action for the collection of sum of money with damages filed with the
MTCC, Masbate City against respondents therein, John Mark Viceo and Ma. Michelle
Lobrigo (Spouses Viceo).

Two years had already lapsed since Complainant had obtained a favorable
judgment from the MTCC and the Writ of Execution enforcing the judgment had been
issued. However, no action was taken on the enforcement of the writ, leading
Complainant to file the present administrative complaint against Respondent Sheriff.

DOCTRINE
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court mandates the sheriff to make a return
on the writ of execution to the Clerk or Judge issuing the Writ. Specifically, a sheriff is
required: (1) to make a return and submit it to the court immediately upon satisfaction
in part or in full of the judgment; and (2) if judgment cannot be satisfied in full, to state
why full satisfaction cannot be made. As well, the sheriff is required to make a report
every thirty (30) days in the proceedings being undertaken by him until judgment is fully
satisfied. Failure to comply with Section 14, Rule 39 constitutes simple neglect of duty.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Pillars Property Corp. v. Century Communities Corp.

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 201021 February 13, 2019

SUMMARY
Petitioners Pillars Property Corporation (PPC) filed a Complaint for sum of money
against respondent Century Communities Corporation (CCC) for unpaid progress billings
in connection with a construction contract.

The CA dismissed PPC’s petition outright, reasoned upon that the PPC availed of
the wrong remedy since it is the settled rule that an order of dismissal, whether correct
or not, is a final order and the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.

DOCTRINE
Appeal is not available as a remedy to question either the grant or denial of a
motion to dismiss based on improper venue. If the motion is denied, the order of denial
is interlocutory since it does not completely dispose of the case and is not appealable
7
under Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules. If the motion is granted, the order of dismissal
is one without prejudice since the complaint can be re-filed and is not appealable under
Section 1 (g) of Rule 41. An order dismissing an action without prejudice is, thus, not
subject to appeal but is reviewable by a Rule 65 certiorari petition.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. v. Gabae

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 212607 November 7, 2016

SUMMARY
(Abis) filed with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Regional Hearing
Officer of the Regional Hearing Office IV (NCIP RHO IV) Unauthorized and Unlawful
Intrusion with Prayer for TRO and Permanent Injunction with Damages against the
petitioner, alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest, who are all members of the
Cuyunen Tribe, have been occupying and cultivating the disputed property as their
ancestral land since time immemorial, and that the petitioner, occupied the said land
which was subsequently developed as a resort.

DOCTRINE
While the general rule dictates that it must be first shown that all the administrative remedies
prescribed by law have been exhausted before filing an extraordinary action for certiorari under
the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, there are however exceptions to this rule,
such as where the issue is purely a legal one or where the controverted act is patently illegal.
───※ ·❆· ※───

United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Sy

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 204753 Mar. 27, 2019

SUMMARY
UCPB granted respondent Nation Granary, Inc. (NGI) a credit accommodation, in
the form of an Import Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt Line amounting to
US$15,000,000.00 and a case-to-case Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt in the amount of
US$3,800,400.00. Both NPGI and the Sps. Sy executed Surety Agreements securing the
credit accommodations. Demands for payment remained unheeded.

When the case reached the CA, the appellate court held that the RTC failed to
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants due to improper service of
summons. Hence, this Petition for Review under Rule 45.

DOCTRINE
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. However, a party who makes a special

8
appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot
be considered to have submitted to its authority. As a special appearance operates as
an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance when the defendant explicitly
and unequivocally poses objections to the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Dizon v. Matti
CAGUIOA, J.

SUMMARY
Respondent was offered a townhouse for sale that belonged to the Petitioner.
However, after showing the documents to the City Assessor where the property was
located, it was found out that the documents were falsified. The petitioner argues that
the CA erred in dismissing outright her Motion for Reconsideration due to the fact that
the said pleading was left unsigned by petitioner's counsel.

DOCTRINE
The Court is not inclined to dismiss outright an appeal on a purely technical
ground, especially if there is some merit to the substantive issues raised by the
petitioner. It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations
where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided
that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes
a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Yu v. Miranda
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 225752 Mar. 27, 2019

SUMMARY
The respondent (Miranda) filed an action for Sum of Money with preliminary
attachment against one of the co-respondent in this case Morning Star Homes , Timmy
& Lilibeth Gabriel alleging that respondent Morning Star sought to establish a housing
project to be financed by the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or Pag-IBIG
through the Group Land Acquisition and Development (GLAD) Financing Program.

Mr. Yu then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, however, the CA
dismissed the case due to the fact that while the RTC should have allowed them to
intervene because they are claiming they are the real owners of the properties subject
of a writ of preliminary attachment, however, the issue has already been rendered moot
and academic in view of the fact that the decision of the RTC already became final and
executory. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari

9
DOCTRINE
A writ of preliminary attachment is only a provisional remedy issued upon order
of the court where an action is pending; it is an ancillary remedy. Attachment is only
adjunct to the main suit. In other words, an attachment or garnishment is generally
ancillary to, and dependent on, a principal proceeding, either at law or in equity, which
has for its purpose a determination of the justice of a creditor's demand. Any relief
against such attachment could be disposed of only in that case

───※ ·❆· ※───

Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association,

Inc. v. Heirs of Cabotaje
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 219984 April 3, 2019

SUMMARY
Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (FACOMA) filed an action for
quieting of title and recovery of ownership against the Heirs of Cabotaje (Cabotaje for
brevity) and francisco estrada in the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City. The RTC
rendered a decision in favor of FACOMA. Cabotaje filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied. They timely filed the notice of appeal.

The CA granted the certiorari petition of Cabotaje. The CA found that the motion
for reconsideration filed by Cabotaje is not a pro forma, hence, the latter’s notice of
appeal was not filed out of time.

DOCTRINE
A case or issue is considered moot and academic only 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. The execution
of a lower court’s judgment cannot be considered as a supervening event that would
automatically moot the issues in the appealed case.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Republic of the Philippines v. Roguza Development Corporation

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.199705 April 03, 2019

SUMMARY
Roguza Development Corporation was awarded by CA Special 17th Division the
construction of the Rosario-Pugo-Baguio Road Rehabilitation Project. However, the
project was suspended due to [DPWH's] failure to secure the required Environmental
Clearance Certificate (ECC).

10
CA Special 17th Division issued the assailed Decision granting RDC's CA Petition
holding that while RDC's First CIAC MR is captioned as such, it was actually in the nature
of a motion for correction of final award.

DOCTRINE
Res judicata is commonly understood as a bar to the prosecution of a second
action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.43 The principle of res judicata
precludes the re-litigation of a conclusively settled fact or question in any future or
other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the
same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a
different cause of action.

For the principle to apply: (i) the issue or fact sought to be precluded must be
identical to the issue or fact actually determined in a former suit; (ii) the party to be
precluded must be party to or was in privity with a party to the former proceeding; (iii)
there was final judgment on the merits in the former proceedings; and (iv) in compliance
with the basic tenet of due process, that the party against whom the principle is asserted
must have had full and fair opportunity to litigate issues in the prior proceedings. All
the foregoing requisites are present.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Cabuguas v. Tan Nery

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.219915 | April 03, 2019

SUMMARY
The respondent is the owner of agricultural land situated in Bukidnon with an
area of 4,204 sq. m covered by TCT No. AT-15991 with CLOA issued by the DAR and
registered on April 23, 2001. On August 16, 2001, respondent looked for laborers to
conduct the act of brushing and land preparation of his landholding for the purpose of
planting yellow corn; his niece contacted and eventually contracted the labor services
of respondent Wilfredo Cabuguas to perform the desired land preparation for a fee.
After the land preparation and after having been paid, Cabuguas, without hesitation and
through stealth and evil machination, immediately occupied the subject land and
planted it with various agricultural crops.

The CA reinstated the PARAD Decision. It ruled that the case involved an agrarian
dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Further, it ruled that issue of the
validity of the title, whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an
action expressly instituted for that purpose. The validity of the CLOA cannot be attacked
collaterally.

11
DOCTRINE
The CA generally has the authority to review findings of fact. Its conclusions as
to the findings of fact are generally accorded great respect by this Court. It is a body
that is fully capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual matters.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Young Builders Corp. v. Benson Industries Inc.

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 198998 June 19, 2019

SUMMARY
Petitioner Young Builders Corporation (YBC) filed before the Regional Trial Court
in Cebu City a complaint for collection of sum of money against defendant Benson
Industries, Inc. (BII). In its complaint, YBC claimed that it was contracted by BII for the
purpose of constructing BII's commercial building located Cebu City pursuant to an
accomplishment billing basis.

CA ruled that apart from the Accomplishment Billing, which was self-serving.
YBC filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the CA. YBC then filed a
petition for appeal on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme
Court.

DOCTRINE
As provided in the Rules, a written instrument or document is "actionable" when
an action or defense is based upon such instrument or document. Not all documents or
instruments attached or annexed to the complaint or the answer are actionable
documents. To qualify as an actionable document pursuant to Section 7, Rule 8 of the
Rules, the specific right or obligation which is the basis of the action or defense must
emanate therefrom or be evident therein. If the document or instrument so qualifies
and is pleaded in accordance with Section 7 — the substance thereof being set forth in
the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof attached to the pleading as an exhibit
— then the genuineness and due execution thereof are deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
be the facts pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 8.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Prime Savings Bank v. Sps. Santos

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.208283 June 19, 2019

SUMMARY
Respondents Sps. Santos filed a Complaint for Rescission of Sale and Real Estate
Mortgage with Prayer for Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City
against one Engr. Edgardo Torcende and Prime Savings Bank. During the pendency of the

12
civil case, the Monetary Board of the BSP issued a resolution which prohibited Prime
Savings Bank from doing business and placed it under receivership and subsequently
under liquidation.

The RTC ordered the enforcement of the Writ of Execution and Notice of
Garnishment against Prime Savings Bank. The CA denied Prime Saving Bank’s application
for TRO and/or WPI. Prime Savings Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was
denied by the CA. Prime Savings Bank then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

DOCTRINE
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgments or final orders,
not interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order cannot be the subject of appeal until
final judgment is rendered for one party or the other. No appeal may be taken from an
interlocutory order. Instead, the proper remedy to assail such an order is to file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Trade And Investment Development Corporation Vs Philippine

Veterans Bank
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 233850 July 1, 2019

SUMMARY
Respondent Philippine Veterans Bank, in its Complaint, alleged that it entered
into a Note Facility Agreement (NFA), together with other banking institutions, with
debtor Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PhilPhos).

Petitioner, in its Answer argued that the RTC cannot validly try the case because
of the Rehabilitation Court's Stay Order, enjoined the enforcement of all claims, actions
and proceedings against PhilPhos. In response to said Answer, Respondent filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and Petitioner filed its Comment. The RTC issued the assailed
Order which granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, as there was no
genuine issue as to any material fact posed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed the
present Petition since the Order was a final and susceptible of appeal in which pure
questions of law are involved.

DOCTRINE
Jurisprudence holds that "the defendant must show that he has a bona fide
defense to the action, one which he may be able to establish. It must be a plausible
ground of defense, something fairly arguable and of a substantial character. This he
must show by affidavits or other proof."

───※ ·❆· ※───

13
Republic v. Heirs of Paus
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.201273 August 14, 2019

SUMMARY
Private respondents, the heirs of Ikang Paus, filed a petition for identification,
delineation and issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title with the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The heirs of Mateo Cariño opposed the
petition, and prayed for its dismissal, cancellation, and revocation. The NCIP favored
the heirs of Paus while the heirs of Cariño protested. The Republic, through the OSG,
questioned the said decision and filed a suit for reversion, annulment of documents and
cancellation of title. It contended that the said actions are not within the jurisdiction
of NICP. The RTC dismissed the said case. CA ruled that petitioner availed itself of the
correct remedy when it filed a Rule 65 petition to assail RTC’s dismissal without
prejudice of the Complaint.

DOCTRINE
The following are the requisites for a proper intervention of a non-party: a. Legal
interest b. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of
original parties c. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate
proceeding

───※ ·❆· ※───

MR Holdings, Inc. And Marcopper Mining Corporation Vs. Rolando

A. De Jesus
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 217837 September 4, 2019

SUMMARY
Onephil Mineral Resources, Inc., (hereafter Onephil) filed an Exploration Permit
Application in the Municipalities of Sta. Cruz and Boac, Province of Marinduque before
the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (hereafter MGB). The Survey Section of the MGB
found that the application of Onephil overlaps several other mining applications or
claims.

Subsequently, after trial on the merits, the RTC, through Acting Presiding Judge
Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, rendered a Decision dismissing petitioners' Amended Petition
for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC ruled that the issue raised in the Amended Petition
involves a mining dispute and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Panel of
Arbitrators.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC.

14
DOCTRINE
The nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such
action are to be determined from the following: material allegation of the complaint,
the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred since
jurisdiction is not affected by the please/the theories set up by defendant in an answer
to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Montero v. Montero, Jr.

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 217755 September 18, 2019

SUMMARY
Petitioner Elmer filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Affidavit of
Adjudication and Reconveyance before the Regional Trial Court. Respondents Santiago
and Charlie filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Regional Trial Court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint because as alleged in the
complaint, the assessed value of the property is P3,010.00

DOCTRINE
REM) Actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title
over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein.

(CIV) While "title" gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a "certificate
of title," the holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the
real property. The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the owner any better
title than what he actually has in law. Therefore, a plaintiff’s action for cancellation or
nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary consequence of establishing
that the defendant lacks title to real property.

NOTES
In upholding the RTC's dismissal of the action due to lack of jurisdiction, the Court therein
explained that "title" is different from a "certificate of title" which is the document of ownership
under the Torrens system of registration issued by the government through the Register of Deeds.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Fernando v. Paguyo
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 237871 September 18, 2019

15
SUMMARY
The RTC rendered its Decision, declaring and confirming consolidation of
ownership in Tomas of the real property. Respondents Payugo filed a Petition for
Annulment of Decision on the ground that the respondents, who are indispensable
parties, were not impleaded.

DOCTRINE
Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of decision "is
resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process." According to Section 3 of Rule 47, if based on
extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if
based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

According to jurisprudence, an annulment of decision may not be invoked (1)

where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself
of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.

NOTES
It must be stressed that the respondents were not able to avail at all of the remedy of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief or any other remedy against the RTC's Decision in Civil Case
No. 31-SD(97), not due to their own fault or negligence, but precisely because they were not
impleaded by the petitioners Fernandos.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Prescilla v. Lasquite
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 205805 September 25, 2019

SUMMARY
Despite the fact that the Petitioners Prescilla timely filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the decision of the CA, the RTC granted the respondent’s Motion for
Execution of the Court’s Decision.

DOCTRINE
Section 4, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal: the pendency
of a motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the
execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered.

Therefore, as to petitioners Prescilla, et al., whose Motion for Reconsideration

is still pending before the CA, Eighth Division, it must be stressed that the controversy
has not been resolved with finality. Consequently, as far as petitioners Prescilla, et al.,
are concerned, there is no judgment that is already ripe for execution.

16
───※ ·❆· ※───

Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp.

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 241774 September 25, 2019

SUMMARY
Petitioner Francisco filed a Verified Complaint for Reconveyance and Declaration
of Nullity of Sale. The lower courts dismissed the same because Francisco’s claim was
already waived, abandoned or extinguished through the execution of an Ante-Nuptial
Agreement made by Francisco and Victoria.

DOCTRINE
Under Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, whenever a defense is based upon
a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument shall be set forth
in the pleading and the original or copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading, which
shall be deemed part of the pleading.

When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or

attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be
the facts. (Sec 8, Rule 8).

───※ ·❆· ※───

Spouses Rebamonte v. Spouses Lucero

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 237812 | October 2, 2019

SUMMARY
Respondents Sps. Lucero instituted a Complaint for Recovery of Real Estate
Property before the Regional Trial Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the
petitioners Sps. Rebamonte raised for the first time the issue on whether the RTC has
jurisdiction over the complaint.

DOCTRINE
The general rule that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage
of the proceedings is not absolute. It is settled that, upon the existence of certain
exceptional circumstances, a party may be barred from raising lack of jurisdiction on
the ground of estoppel.

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.

17
───※ ·❆· ※───

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. Heirs of Marcos

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 225971 June 17, 2020

SUMMARY
RCBMI filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 before the CA
of the order of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. CA dismissed the same on the ground of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, noting that RCBMI should have first filed an
appeal before the DARAB, pursuant to the DARAB Rules of Procedure.

DOCTRINE
Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not inflexible, and admits
of several exceptions that include situations where the very rationale of the doctrine
has been defeated. The Court has taken many occasions to outline these exceptions,
including: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b)
where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so
small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved
is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where
judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great
and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where
the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j)
where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public
interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings

───※ ·❆· ※───

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Jona Bumatay v. Lolita Bumatay

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 191320 April 25, 2017

SUMMARY
The RTC-San Carlos concluded that there were "glaring material similarities" between
Morigo and the bigamy case against Lolita. Thus, in dismissing the case against Lolita, the RTC-
San Carlos held that since the first marriage has been declared void ab initio, then, pursuant to
the ruling in Morigo, there is no first marriage to begin with in determining the foremost element

18
of bigamy. The CA affirmed the RTC-San Carlos' Order dated March 20, 2006 granting the Motion
to Quash and dismissed Jona's appeal.

DOCTRINE
Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, dictates that all criminal
actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court, the
authority to represent the State is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Based on the records, it appears undisputed that Petitioner has no legal personality to assail the
dismissal of the criminal case. In criminal cases, the People is the real party-in-interest and only
the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings before this Court.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Bongbonga y Nalos

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 214771 August 9, 2017

SUMMARY
Appellant undressed himself, went on top of AAA, kissed her lips and for the third time,
had carnal knowledge with the victim. After such incident, AAA was again warned by the
appellant not to tell her parents. However, this time AAA told her parents about the incident.

Accordingly, the CA could only convict Ruben for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.
However, we cannot impose the penalty of rape upon appellant on the third incident that
transpired on October 16, 2000 because the Information only spoke of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness. It is a basic constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.

DOCTRINE
It is well-settled that a conviction for a crime not sufficiently alleged in the Information
is proscribed by the fundamental requirement of due process and other rights granted to an
accused by the Constitution, particularly the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Macasaet
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 196094 March 5, 2018

SUMMARY
Three consolidated cases originated from complaints for nine counts of libel on account
of nine interrelated newspaper articles which appeared in the newspapers Malaya and Abante
where statements allegedly derogatory to then Governor Casimiro "Ito" M. Ynares, Jr. (Ynares)
and former Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government Atty. Narciso
"Jun" Y. Santiago, Jr. (Santiago) were written by Amado "Jake" Macasaet (Macasaet). Ynares filed
the two counts of libel while Santiago filed the other seven counts of libel.
19
Accused filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the filing of the present Information,
after the lapse of more than nine (9) years after the filing of the libel complaints, violates their
constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy disposition of cases.

The CA uniformly applied the principle of laches or implied acquiescence in construing

the silence of the accused or their inaction to object to the delay and/or failure to seasonably
raise the right to speedy disposition of their cases as waiver thereof.

DOCTRINE
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the persons who may be liable for libel
and the venue of the libel case.

In Agbayani v. Sayo, the court held that" experience had shown that under that old rule
the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal
action in a remote or distant place. xxx xxx xxx To forestall such harassment, Republic Act No.
4363 was enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the venue of the criminal action so as to
prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by
means of out-of-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts."

The rules on venue of criminal actions for libel were also restated in Agbayani, thus: 1.
Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed
and first published; 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also
be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of
the commission of the offense; 3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila
at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance
of Manila; 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the
time of the commission of the offense.

The Court in Bonifacio v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149 made the following
clarification in case the basis of the venue of the libel criminal action is the place where the
libel was printed and first published: If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and
first published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the
Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first
published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business
offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes
necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.

According to Bonifacio, "the Information must allege with particularity where the
defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance,
the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers."

In the present case, the venue is apparently the place where the alleged defamatory
article in Malaya was printed and first published.

The right to speedy disposition of the accused's case is explained in Caballes v. CA, thus:
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was
designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over
him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating
the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a
speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the proceeding is attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an accused has
20
been denied such right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy
disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.

The right to speedy disposition of one's case, similar to the right to speedy trial, may be
waived.

Indeed, the Constitution guarantees in the Bill of Rights, Article III, Section 14 (2) that:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused x x x shall enjoy the right x x x to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial x x x" and in Article III, Section 16 that: "All persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies." Congress has also enacted in February 12, 1998 Republic Act No. (RA) 8493, otherwise
known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998."

In this case, the CA failed to consider the other factors that must be present before the
right to speedy case determination may be considered to have been waived. The CA did not
consider the length of delay and the reason for the delay. The length of delay must be
commensurate with the reason thereof.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Reyes y Paulina

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 225736 October 15, 2018

SUMMARY
This is case of murder and physical injury. The victims in this case who were murdered
were members of Military Police

Reyes had previously told the authorities in his affidavit Exhibit A, in addition to what he
related in court, that Oliveros, Magallanes and Big Boy had approached the three MP's and lined
them up on the road, after which shots were heard. Enough, however, may be gathered from his
testimony in open court to identify Gatchalian as one of the assailants, the conversation he
overheard in the rice field being admissible as an admission and as part of the res gestæ.

DOCTRINE
The evidence applicable in this case is about Admissions and Confessions of a party. Sec.
26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of court provides: “The act, declaration or omission of a party as to
a relevant fact may be given against him.” As to the Ruling in this case, the Court held “Enough,
however, may be gathered from his testimony in open court to identify Gatchalian as one of the
assailants, the conversation he overheard in the rice field being admissible as an admission and
as part of the res gestae.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Dominguez y Argana v. People

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 235898 March 4, 2019

21
SUMMARY
Dominguez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. Upon
arraignment, Dominguez pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.

CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of Dominguez holding that the prosecution was able to
prove the elements of the crime charged. And aslo held that there was no showing that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item was compromised. It stated that the chain of
custody can be easily established. It further stressed that the defense of denial and frame-up
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertions of the police officers, particularly
SPO1 Parchasp, who was a stranger to Dominguez and against whom no ioll motive was
established.

DOCTRINE
Well settled is the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment. Any
objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over
the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a
jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to
arraignment without objection. However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects
the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal,
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during
an illegal warrantless arrest; (CONSTI) Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable right of the
people to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures,
as defined under Section 2, Article III thereof.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Lumahang y Talisay

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 218581 Mar. 27, 2019

SUMMARY
Two Informations were filed against Lumahang (Respondent) for killing Rodel Velitario
(Velitario) [Murder] and stabbing Augusto Pornelos (Pornelos) [Physical Injuries].

When the case reached CA, it affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modifications. It upheld
the RTC's finding that Lumahang was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender because he surrendered to the barangay at the night of the incident after having been
convinced by his aunt, Virginia Lumahang. While the CA upheld Lumahang's conviction for Murder
for the killing of Velitario, it did, however, downgrade Lumahang's conviction for the stabbing of
Pornelos.

DOCTRINE
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present:
1.) The offender has not been actually arrested;
2.) The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and
3.) The surrender was voluntary. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and
the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because

22
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may
be incurred for his search and capture.

Without these elements, and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the
inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and,
therefore, cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to serve as a mitigating
circumstance.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 165496 February 12, 2007

SUMMARY
Park filed a criminal action against the Choi for violation of BP 22 to the MeTC. Choi filed
a demurred to evidence with leave of court assailing that the Park failed to prove that he
received the notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of the element of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds did not arise.

Park’s motion for reconsideration of the remand of the case having been denied, he
elevated the case to the CA which, by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his petition for faulty
appeal requisite.

DOCTRINE
As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution
cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment
despite the acquittal of the accused.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Aseniero
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 218209 April 10, 2019

SUMMARY
Accused Romeo Aseniero was charged with the crime of Murder by stabbing Dominador
Ranes with a long bolo. The RTC found Aseniero guilty of Murder. It ruled that treachery attended
the killing of the victim because he was suddenly and unexpectedly hacked from behind by the
accused. This was affirmed by the CA.

DOCTRINE
Treachery; To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant
employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms
of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.

───※ ·❆· ※───

23
Pili v. Resurreccion
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 222798 June 19, 2019

SUMMARY
Respondent entered into an agreement with Conpil Realty Corporation (Conpil) for the
purchase of a house and lot and issued two checks in favor of the latter. When Conpil tried to
encash the checks, the checks bounced and were stamped with the words “Account Closed”. As
a result of this, a case for BP22 was filed against the Respondent.After the trial, the MTC
rendered a judgment acquitting the respondent, but ordered her to pay 500,000 pesos, as civil
indemnity for the house and lot.

Respondent appealed the civil aspect of the case. The case was titled “Mary Ann
Resurreccion v. Pili”, the CA opined that she was not a real party in interest.

DOCTRINE
While a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, either the offended
party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the
accused. There is no doubt that the People is the real party-in-interest in criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, the private complainant is the real party-in-interest only as regards the civil
aspect arising from the crime.

As regards pleadings, they shall be construed liberally so as to render substantial justice

to the parties and to determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the controversy
with the least regard to technicalities.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Enriquez, Jr.

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 238171 June 19, 2019

SUMMARY
Accused Enriquez was charged with murder for allegedly unlawfully attacking and killing
Florencio Dela Cruz by stabbing her with a bladed weapon on the thorax, neck, and different
parts of her body.

The RTC convicted him of murder, stating that the defenses of alibi deserved scant
consideration.

Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court, stating that the findings
of the lower court are accorded with great respect.

DOCTRINE
In appeals in criminal cases the whole case is thrown open for review on issues of both
fact and law, and the court may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties as
errors.

───※ ·❆· ※───

24
Del Rosario v. People
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 235739 July 22, 2019

SUMMARY
Edwin, together with Roxan Cansiancio, was charged with Robbery. After trial, the RTC
convicted Edwin of the crime. The RTC ruled that Edwin's alibi would not prosper because he was
unable to comply with the requirements of time and place, since he was in Davao City. Hence,
it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. The CA affirmed its decision.

DOCTRINE
The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information, or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. The
crime committed is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
complaint or information. In this case, the allegations in the Information are sufficient to make
out a charge of theft.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Javier v. Sandiganbayan
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 237997 June 10, 2020

SUMMARY
Petitioners Javier contend that five and four months have passed from the filing of the
complaint against them to the approval of the resolution finding probable cause which
constitutes delay and a violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

DOCTRINE
In resolving questions involving the right to speedy disposition of cases, the Court is
guided by its ruling in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan. wherein the following guidelines were laid down:

First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial.
The right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The
right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether
judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by
the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.

Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a
conduct of a preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman
should set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation, 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 the formal complaint shall not
be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.

Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is
invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and
circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the
defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs

25
beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of
justifying the delay.

If the defense has the burden of proof, it must prove first, whether the case is motivated
by malice or clearly only politically motivated and is attended by utter lack of evidence, and
second, that the defense did not contribute to the delay.

Once the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, the prosecution must prove first, that
it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the
prosecution of the case; second, that the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence
made the delay inevitable; and third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result
of the delay.

Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider
the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or
complexity of the issues raised.

An exception to this rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of the case was
solely motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically motivated or when there is
continued prosecution despite utter lack of evidence. Malicious intent may be gauged from the
behavior of the prosecution throughout the proceedings. If malicious prosecution is properly
alleged and substantially proven, the case would automatically be dismissed without need of
further analysis of the delay.

Another exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy disposition
of cases or the right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the accused acquiesced to the delay,
the constitutional right can no longer be invoked.
In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays must be
properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court.

Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely
raised. The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the
statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy
disposition of cases.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Mathay v. People
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 218964 June 30, 2020

SUMMARY
Private respondent Gandionco filed a criminal complaint against petitioners Mathay for
Qualified Theft. The Petitioners contends that there are two pending civil cases which are
determinative of their guilt or innocence and hence, the criminal action should be suspended

DOCTRINE
The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court, but the
jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a
question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime, but so intimately connected with
it that its ascertainment determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For it to suspend the
26
criminal action, it must appear not only that the civil case involves facts intimately related to
those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the
issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily
be determined.

───※ ·❆· ※───

EVIDENCE

People v. Gerola y Amar

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 217973 July, 19, 2017
SUMMARY
Three separate informations for rape were filed against accused Federico Gerola
y Amar.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of all charges filed against him
and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each charge without eligibility of
parole. On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the accused assailed the appreciation of
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which he claimed to be replete with
inconsistencies and contradictions. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling
of the trial court.

DOCTRINE
Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible; the
revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused demands full credence.
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral
matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the
weight of their testimony.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Hesson Callao

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 228945 March 14, 2018
SUMMARY
Hesson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by
treachery. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of lone prosecution witness
Sario, stating that he testified in a straightforward manner and categorically identified
Hesson. Likewise, there is nothing that indicates any improper motive on Sario's part to
falsely impute an offense as grave as murder to Hesson. CA affirmed.

27
DOCTRINE
As clearly put by the Court in the case of People v. Hillado, 307 SCRA 535 (1999),
“Thus, the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial
court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the
earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in
a straightforward manner. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. Evidence is
assessed in terms of quality and not quantity. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a
conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.

For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the

appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number
and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a
single witness. Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary ‘only when there are
reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his
observation had been inaccurate.’”

With regard to credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s assessment deserves

great weight, and may even be conclusive and binding, as it is in the best position to
make such determination, being the one who has personally heard the accused and the
witnesses.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Ready Form Inc. v. Castillon, Jr.

CAGUIOA, J.
A.C No. 11774 March 21, 2018
SUMMARY
Ready Form was one of the companies who participated in a public bidding
conducted by the NPO on October 17, 2008. After reviewing these submissions, the NPO-
BAC imposed a suspension of one (1) year against Ready Form due to the supposed
misrepresentation and misdeclaration it committed when it submitted alleged false ITRs
and financial statements for the calendar year 2007.

After due proceedings, Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Biñas rendered a Report

and Recommendation, absolving Atty. Castillon from the charges filed by Ready Form.
Commissioner Go-Biñas found that Ready Form's claims were unfounded, as there is no
proof that Atty. Castillon procured Ready Form's ITR, or that he used it in the Petition
for Blacklisting.

DOCTRINE
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that audited financial statements
submitted by corporations, as required by Section 141 of the Corporation Code, are
made available to the public by the SEC. Hence, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon
violated any law when he attached a copy of Ready Form's audited financial statements
in the Petition for Blacklisting he filed with the NPO.

28
───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Callejo
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 227427 June 06, 2018
SUMMARY
The RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and rejected the
appellants' defense of frame-up. The CA rendered the Assailed Decision affirming the
RTC Decision.

DOCTRINE
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a
constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt by establishing each and every element of the crime charged.
Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is
fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of
irregularity. The presumption of regularity cannot overcome the stronger presumption
of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat
the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. Trial courts have been
directed by the Court to apply this differentiation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Sood
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 227394 June 06, 2018
SUMMARY
On 28 January 2009, a certain "Florence" was apprehended in a buy-bust
operation. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction and found that there was
non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 but still held that there was "substantial
compliance" with the law because the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized
were preserved. The CA also found that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the buy-bust team as to the place of inventory, but decided to treat them as "minor
inconsistencies" that did not affect the credibility of the witnesses.

DOCTRINE
Supplementing RA 9165, Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) states that in cases of non-compliance with the procedure
for inventory and photographing, the IRR imposed the twin requirements of, first, there
should be justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and second, the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items should be properly preserved. Failure to show
these two conditions renders void and invalid the seizure of and custody of the seized
drugs. Here, the prosecution's reason for not conducting the inventory in the place of
seizure was that they supposedly wanted to avoid any commotion at the area because
there would be vehicular traffic. The foregoing reason hardly qualifies as sufficient
29
justification for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 as to the conduct of
the inventory and photographing at the place of seizure.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People of the Philippines v. Jennifer Ga-a y Coronado, Aquila

“Payat” Adobar
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 222559 June 6, 2018
SUMMARY
Police operatives conducted a buy-bust operation against Adobar. When Adobar
handed the shabu to the PDEA agent, the team rushed to the former and shouted, “dapa,
dapa, PDEA!” Unfortunately, Adobar escaped. However, IO1 Siglos took custody of the
seized drugs and turned it over to IO3 Tablate for marking. Only Punong Barangay Acenas
and a media representative were present during the marking, photographing, preparing
of inventory, and its signing. The DOJ representative was absent.Thereafter, the team
went to the Regional Office, and prepared a request for examination of the seized drugs.

DOCTRINE
Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The purpose of their presence is to insulate the police from planting evidence to
the scene of the crime.

Moreover, in order to successfully trigger the saving clause, the prosecution must
satisfy its two-pronged requirement: first, acknowledge and credibly justify the non-
compliance, and second, show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
item were properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution did not acknowledge the
lapses, much less offer a credible justification of their non-compliance.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Hilario B. Aliling v. People of the Philippines

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 230991 June 11, 2018
SUMMARY
Aliling was charged with frustrated murder when he allegedly shot Tumbaga
when the latter was about to board his motorcycle parked at a basketball court in
Lemery, Batangas. The defense of the accused was that he was campaigning for a certain
30
candidate. The RTC convicted Aliling as it gave more credence to the testimonies of the
victim and eyewitnesses rather than the negative defenses of the accused. Then, the
CA affirmed the RTC decision and noted that the corroborative witness did not know the
whereabouts of Aliling at the time of the alleged crime.

DOCTRINE
If found credible, the defenses of denial and alibi may be considered complete
and legitimate defenses. The accused must prove not only that he was at some other
place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time thereof. Physical
impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when
the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of
access between the two places.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People of the Philippines v. Gerry Agramon

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 212156 June 20, 2018
SUMMARY
The accused was charged with murder for killing his brother’s wife. Gerry was
allegedly drunk when he entered the house of the couple. He was about to stab his
brother again when the wife came to rescue and was the one who was hit and killed.
Gerry alleged self-defense, arguing that he was the one who was threatened by his
brother for destroying the plants of the latter by the former’s pigs.

DOCTRINE
It is established that qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same
quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People of the Philippines vs XXX

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 225059 July 23, 2018
SUMMARY
Four (4) separate Informations for rape under Article 266-A, par. 1, in relation
to Article 266-B, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code were filed in the RTC against XXX for
four (4) counts of rape committed against BBB

The RTC, in considering the evidence on record, found BBB's testimony to be

straightforward and credible as against XXX's unsubstantiated defense of denial and
alibi. Likewise, XXX's imputation of ill motive to BBB was considered by the RTC as "too
petty to merit belief. the CA rendered the questioned Decision, affirming the RTC
Decision.

31
DOCTRINE
It is a long-standing rule that in rape cases, an accused may be convicted based
on the victim's sole testimony, provided that it is logical, credible, consistent, and
convincing. The rule becomes more binding whereas in the instant case - the victims are
young and immature, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because
of the shame and embarrassment which they stand to suffer during trial, if indeed the
matters to be testified on were untrue.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PNP v Villafuerte
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773 September 18, 2018
SUMMARY
Villafuerte was administratively charged for his role in the procurement. In his
Counter-Affidavit, Villafuerte claimed that his only participation in the procurement
process was the drafting of several documents under the instruction of P/SSupt. Lurimer
B. Detran, Head of the BAC Secretariat.

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) found substantial evidence to hold

Villafuerte guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service. The CA reversed, and ordered Villafuerte’s reinstatement.

DOCTRINE
In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to sustain a finding of
culpability, that is, such amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Mercado y Anticla

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 218702 October 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Evelyn claimed that Patrick hit her and Alicia with a baseball bat then set them
on fire. Despite medical attention, Evelyn succumbed to her injuries and died. Based on
the declarations of Evelyn, Patrick was charged for the killing of Evelyn and Alicia. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Patrick of the crime of Double Murder, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

32
DOCTRINE
As an exception to the hearsay rule, a dying declaration is admissible as evidence
because it is “evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no
person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.”

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Espejo y Rizaldo

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 240914 March 18, 2019
SUMMARY
This case involves a buy-bust operation following a report from a “concerned citizen”
that accused Espejo was engaged in illegal drug trade.

DOCTRINE
Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must
strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia
used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and
photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and
photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative
or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d)
a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over
to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.

The Court, however, has clarified that under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible;
and, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid
out in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody of the
items void and invalid. However, this is with the caveat that the prosecution still needs
to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. It has
been repeatedly emphasized by the Court that the prosecution has the positive duty to
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. Without any justifiable explanation,
which must be proven as a fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the
acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground that his guilt has not been shown
beyond reasonable doubt.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Guro y Combo

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 230619 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
RTC and CA convicted Angel Guro for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the
RPC. Jefferson, the witness, son of Jesus testified that while at their home in Cubao,
33
his father was called from Venus de los Santos, Jefferson’s cousin. When they fetch
Joemarie, his brother and passing by Parang, Marikinca City, they saw around 5 persons
waiting for him at the computer shop. When Jefferson asked what was the problem, he
was suddenly pushed and fell down. Upon getting himself up, he saw his father on his
knees and another hitting him with a chair, mauling and stabbing him.

DOCTRINE
When the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonies and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect,
if not conclusive.

Discordance in the testimonies of witnesses on minor matters heighten their

credibility and shows that their testimonies were not coached or rehearsed, especially
where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive
identification of the assailant

A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is
such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to
suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.

Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party
desires the court to reject the evidence of ered, he must so state in the form of an
objection.

Generally, flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a

circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, for a truly innocent
person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert
his innocence.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Tuates y Chico v. People

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 230789 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
A jail guard conducted a body search on the petitioner, and while searching the
lower part of her body, the said jail guard found a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance tucked on the left side of the latter's waist. Bundang took the
sachet and went to the Office of the Jail Warden to report the matter.

Tuates (petitioner) was then charged with the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. RTC and CA ruled against her, holding that the prosecution was able
to prove the elements of the crimes charged.

34
DOCTRINE
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty (of an officer) is merely
just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged
by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Sepe v. Heirs Of Kilang

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 199766 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
Complaint alleged that the late Anastacia, who was then an 84-year old,
illiterate, rheumatic and bedridden mother, agreed to the offer of petitioner to
undertake the subdivision of her land in consideration for one lot in the subdivision and
a first preference to buy any portion that might be for sale; but taking advantage of the
ignorance of the respondents’ family, petitioner managed to have the Deed of Sale
executed and misled Feliciana and Donata into believing that the document was the
instrument of subdivision.

It granted respondent’s appeal ruling that the testimonies of Anastacia’s

daughters had established that no consideration was paid to their mother and that the
notice of withdraw of adverse claim was not done by Anastacia but through illegal
machinations of the petitioner.

DOCTRINE
Where a document, like a deed of sale, duly acknowledged before a notary public
is disputed, the parties thereto are in the best position to refute its execution and
contents. Their testimonies are crucial in order to establish the required proof of clear
and convincing evidence to overcome the presumptions in favor of public documents.
Oral declarations by non-parties which contradict the contents of notarial documents
should be evaluated and admitted with extreme caution in order not to erode their
status and significance as public documents.

───※ ·❆· ※───

RCBC Bankard Services Corporation v. Oracion

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 223274 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioner RCBC Bankard Services Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of
money amounting to P111,157.98, inclusive of charges and penalties, against
respondents Moises Jr. and Emily Oracion, who were granted credit card
accommodations by the petitioner.

35
In the complaint filed before the MeTC, the petitioner attached “duplicate
original” copies of the Statements of Account (SOAs) and the Credit History Inquiry. The
RTC found the appeal to the without merit as the SOAs and Credit History Inquiry cound
not be considered as original.

DOCTRINE
For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the
test of admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
"[a]n electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in
the manner prescribed by these Rules."

───※ ·❆· ※───

Paz Mandin-Trotin v. Francisco A. Bongo et al

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 212840 August 28, 2019
SUMMARY
The instant controversy involves a parcel of land in Danao, Panglao, Bohol,
containing an area of 3.2 ha, more or less. It is covered by Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) registered in the name of Candido Bongo

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of [the Heirs of Candido Bongo. The CA in its
Decision dated April 10, 2014 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision.
Further, the CA ruled that intervenor Trotin could not anymore compel the Heirs of
Candido Bongo to fulfill their contracted obligation because of her failure to pay the
balance of the purchase price amounting to P900,000.00 based on the contract to sell
"not later than two (2) months and on or before October 31, 1997" relieved the vendors
of any obligation to hold the property in reserve for her, there being no more contract
to speak of.

DOCTRINE
The requisites for the introduction of newly discovered evidence are: (1) the
evidence was discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered
and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) it is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is
of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged
evidence could have very well been presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the same could not be considered newly discovered evidence.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Paulo Jackson Polangcos y Francisco, Vs. People Of The

Philippines
36
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 239866 September 11, 2019
SUMMARY
An Information was filed against Polangcos for violating Section 11 of RA 9165
SPO2 Juntanilla testified that on 16 August 2015 he was on board a mobile patrol
car with his team along J.P. Rizal St., Marikina City, when they spotted a motorcycle
without a plate number. They then pursued the motorcycle.

CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of Polangcos. It ruled that the prosecution was
able to establish all the elements of the crime, namely: (1) the accused is in possession
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously.

The CA further declared that Polangcos could no longer assail the validity of his
arrest because "any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made
before the accused enters his plea on arraignment." It thus ruled that any irregularity
was already cured upon Polangcos' voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. The
CA therefore affirmed Polangcos' conviction.

DOCTRINE
Any evidence seized as a result of searches and seizures conducted in violation
of Sec. 2 Art. III of the 1987 Constitution is inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding."

───※ ·❆· ※───

XXX v. People
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 242101 September 16, 2019
SUMMARY
AAA, who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, testified against the
accused. The latter denied the allegations and declared that she made the said
accusation only because of a previous misunderstanding.

DOCTRINE
A victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate
account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. The Court ruled
in Madali v. People: The affidavit of recantation executed by a witness prior to the trial
cannot prevail over the testimony during the trial, effectively repudiating the contents
of the affidavit.

NOTES
A recantation is exceedingly unreliable, inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and
ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.

───※ ·❆· ※───

37
People v. Fayo y Rubio
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 239887 Oct. 2, 2019
SUMMARY
A buy-bust operation was conducted which resulted in the arrest of the accused
Fayo. The latter questions his conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to
establish that they have complied with requirements provided under Sec. 21 of RA 9165
to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs.

DOCTRINE
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried
and photographed at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; (2) the
physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused
or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a
representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media; and (3) the
accused or his/her representative and all of the aforesaid witnesses shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police

officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti would necessarily have been compromised.

───※ ·❆· ※───

People v. Vertudes
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 220725 October 16, 2019
SUMMARY
The accused-appellant Vertudes was convicted by the RTC for violation of RA
9165. The trial court held that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 need not be
followed as an exact science and non-compliance with Section 21 does not render the
accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated inadmissible.

DOCTRINE
While the Court has clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible; and the
failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in
Section 21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items
void and invalid, this has always been with the caveat that the prosecution still needs
to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items re properly preserved.

───※ ·❆· ※───

38
People v. Gabiosa, Sr.
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 248395 January 29, 2020
SUMMARY
Judge Balagot issued a search warrant against petitioner Gabiosa. The latter
questioned the validity of the search warrant on the ground that the judge did not
examine the complainant but only his witness.

DOCTRINE
In issuing a search warrant, there is no need to examine both the applicant and
the witness/es if either one of them is sufficient to establish probable cause.

NOTES
Since probable cause is dependent largely on the findings of the judge who conducted
the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses, then
his findings deserve great weight.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Tañamor y Acibo v. People

CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 248395 January 29, 2020
SUMMARY
Michael Acibo was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In his
defense, Acibo denied ownership of the items that were allegedly seized and submitted
instead that no buy-bust operation took place before his arrest.

DOCTRINE
An unbroken chain of custody is necessary in order to establish before the court
that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same
substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established
with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. This
rule is imperative, under pain of rendering all seized evidence in the course of the
operation incredible.

───※ ·❆· ※───

39
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

PH Bank of Communications vs. CA

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No.218901 February 15, 2017
SUMMARY
This Complaint for collection of a sum of money in the amount of P8,971,118.06
was filed by PBCOM against private respondents

CA issued the assailed Decision denying PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus and affirming the order of the RTC, with a reason that, apart from availing
itself of a wrong mode of appeal, PBCOM failed to comply with the mandatory
requirement of a motion for reconsideration. The CA emphasized that the filing of a
motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari to
prosper.

On August 26, 2014, PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid
Decision, but the same was denied by the CA for having been filed out of time.

DOCTRINE
While it is a settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent court;
there are well-defined exceptions established by jurisprudence, such as (a) where the
order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the
questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by
the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c)
where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the
subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion
for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process
and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an
order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h)
where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved.

───※ ·❆· ※───

40
Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 211010 March 7, 2017
SUMMARY
In 2017, petitioners sued the Government of the Philippines seeking to reduce
air pollution from vehicular emissions. Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed the
lawsuit for failing to establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs. The Court
found that petitioners had not established that the Commission was guilty of violation
or neglect of environmental laws as required by the writ of kalikasan. Further,
petitioners failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from the government's failure
to act, as required by the writ of continuing mandamus. The court accepted the
government’s evidence that it was implementing environmental laws and prioritizing
programs aimed at addressing and mitigating climate change.

DOCTRINE
There is a difference between a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan,
wherein it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants prejudiced by
the environmental damage subject of the writ; and a petition for the issuance of a writ
of continuing mandamus, which is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by
the unlawful act or omission.

Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), the writ of
kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering environmental damage of such magnitude
that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. It is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger
protection for environmental rights, aiming, among others, to provide a speedy and
effective resolution of a case involving the violation of one's constitutional right to a
healthful and balanced ecology that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and
to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats. At the
very least, the magnitude of the ecological problems contemplated under the RPEC
satisfies at least one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, as when direct
resort is allowed where it is dictated by public welfare.

For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:

1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to
a balanced and healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity;
and
3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated.

Rule 8, Section 1 of the RPEC lays down the requirements for a petition for
continuing mandamus as follows: "When any agency or instrumentality of the
41
government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection
with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right
therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition
concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment
is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or
regulations x x x…"

───※ ·❆· ※───

Philippine Ports Authority v. Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and

Stevedoring Services, Inc.
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 214864 March 22, 2017
SUMMARY
PPA contends that the Amended Petition before the RTC had been rendered moot
and academic by virtue of the CA's decision. On this basis, PPA concludes that it can no
longer be compelled to formally execute a contract with NIASSI upon finality of the
Amended Decision, since the term of the perfected contract already expired 10 years
after PPA received notice of NIASSI's conformity to the Notice of Award.

DOCTRINE
The doctrine of the law of the case precludes departure from a rule previously
made by an appellate court in a subsequent proceeding essentially involving the same
case. The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal.
It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or
decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision
was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

A preliminary injunction is in the nature of an ancillary remedy to preserve the

status quo during the pendency of the main case. As a necessary consequence, matters
resolved in injunction proceedings do not, as a general rule, conclusively determine the
merits of the main case or decide controverted facts therein. Generally, findings made
in injunction proceedings are subject to the outcome of the main case which is usually
tried subsequent to the injunction proceedings. In this case, however, no further
proceedings were conducted after the Decision of the Supreme Court relative to the
injunction proceedings had become final. As such, no evidence to controvert the findings
of the CA with respect to the injunction proceedings were shown and therefore the
decision became conclusive.

42
───※ ·❆· ※───

Public Attorney's Office v. Office of The Ombudsman And Atty.

Terencia S. Erni-Rivera
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 197613 November 22, 2017
SUMMARY
Atty. Rivera is a Career Service Employee who joined the government service on
July 18, 1978 as Trial Attorney II. Since then, Atty. Rivera had been promoted to several
permanent positions, until she was appointed to the position of Public Attorney V (PA5)
for PAO Regional Office No. III by virtue of a presidential appointment dated March 8,
2004.

Thereafter, the allegations in Magabo's Letter and Affidavit became subject of a

formal administrative complaint filed on September 28, 2005 against Atty. Rivera for
Grave Misconduct and violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations (DOJ Proceeding).

DOCTRINE
Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public
office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case,
given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his
call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form
or substance, or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is
in due and proper form and substance. We have consistently refrained from interfering
with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the
Ombudsman. Thus, if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case
dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless the exercise of such
discretionary powers is tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Medina vs Spouses Lozada

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 185303 August 1, 2018
SUMMARY
Complaint was filed by petitioners against Spouses Lozada, docketed as Civil Case
No. 07-0041. Petitioners failed to append a copy thereof to their instant Petition. A
Motion to Dismiss with Motion to Punish for Contempt dated 10 May 2007 was filed by
Spouses Lozada. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which however,
dismissed the petition.

43
DOCTRINE
It is basic in remedial law that an order of dismissal of the complaint is a final
order which is subject to appeal.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Gatchalian vs Ombudsman
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 229288 August 1, 2018
SUMMARY
Six different criminal complaints were filed by the Field Investigation Office
(FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), Cesar V. Purisima, and Rustico
Tutol against several individuals. CA issued a resolution. It held that the points raised in
Gatchalian's motion for reconsideration were a mere rehash of the arguments which had
already been passed upon by the CA in the earlier decision.

DOCTRINE
A thorough reading of the Morales v. Court of Appeals decision, therefore, would
reveal that it was limited in its application — that it was meant to cover only decisions
or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. The Court never intimated, much
less categorically stated, that it was abandoning its rulings in Kuizon and Estrada and
the distinction made therein between the appellate recourse for decisions or orders of
the Ombudsman in administrative and non-administrative cases. Bearing in mind that
Morales dealt with an interlocutory order in an administrative case, it cannot thus be
read to apply to decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in non-administrative or criminal
cases.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Recto v. People
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 236461 December 5, 2018
SUMMARY
An Information for Murder was filed against petitioner Reynaldo Arbas Recto
(Recto) for the death of Margie Carlosita (Carlosita).

CA affirmed the denial of Recto's Motion to Fix Bail. The CA reasoned that Recto
failed to show that the RTC's issuance of the Order was attended by grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the CA held that
"the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best
undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination."
The CA, thus, deferred to the RTC's assessment of the credibility of Rabillas' testimony,

44
and also relied on its judgment that the evidence of guilt was strong. The CA ultimately
dismissed the case.

DOCTRINE
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy
when (1) any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the
proceeding. Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an arbitrary or despotic
exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or a whimsical,
arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to
perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.

As a rule, all persons charged with a criminal offense have the right to bail.
However, persons charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua cannot avail
of this right if the evidence of guilt is strong. “evidence of guilt is strong" standard
should be applied in relation to the crime as charged.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Local Government Unit of San Mateo, Isabela v. Miguel Vda. De

Guerrero
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 214262 2019-02-13
SUMMARY
Respondent Estefania filed an undated homestead application. Andres Guerero,
common-law husband of Estefania, relinquished his rights over a one-hectare portion in
favor of Petitioner Municipality of San Mateo. Allegedly under threat and intimidation
by the municipal officials of San Mateo, the Guerreros executed a waiver over the
remaining portions in favor of Angel Madrid. Thereafter the said lot was divided by the
Bureau of Lands and where distributed accordingly.

Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari raising the issue that DENR committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it did not
resolve the motion to stay execution, supplemental motion to stay execution, and
motion for ocular inspection.

CA dismissed the petition and found that the DENR did not commit GADLEJ when
it did not resolve the said motions.

DOCTRINE
The grant of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari requires grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an

45
act is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Spouses Pozon v. Lopez

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 210607 March 25, 2019
SUMMARY
Lopez filed a petition for quieting of title and damages against petitioners Sps.
Pozon, Tradex, the Register of Deeds of Makati, Raymundo, Cuasay, Diomampo, and
Evangelista. The petition sought to declare void the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 1515226 issued to Tradex, covering a parcel of land with improvement located at
2149 Paraiso St., Dasmarinas Village, Makati City. In a Supplemental Complaint, Lopez
also sought the declaration of nullity of TCT No. 212133 subsequently issued in the name
of Sps. Pozon.

DOCTRINE
It is an elementary rule that since the only issue for resolution in an ejectment
case is physical or material possession, where the parties to an ejectment case raise the
issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue only for the purposes of
determining who between the parties has the better right to possess the property.

A question of facts exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of
specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Davao ACF Bus Lines v. Ang

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 218516 Mar. 27, 2019
SUMMARY
Case stems from the execution of judgment in a previous criminal case entitled
People v. Tanio, where the accused Rogelio Tanio (employee of the petitioner in this
case) was convicted of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries causing
damage to the respondent in the present case. In the judgment, the MTCC convicted
Tanio and awarded in favor of Ang damages and attorney’s fees.

Consequently, ACF filed a Motion to Recall and/or Quash The Writ of Execution
against it which was, however, denied by the MTCC on the ground that an order for a
hearing should be conducted to determine whether ACF should be held subsidiarily liable
46
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil liability ex delicto of its
employee, accused Tanio. The RTC and CA denied ACF’s motion, hence, this Petition
for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

DOCTRINE
When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged
does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed.
Otherwise, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and
every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. Consequently, an error of
judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctable
through the original civil action of certiorari. Even if the findings of the court are
incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond
the province of certiorari.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Fajardo v. Cua-Malate
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 213666 Mar. 27,2019
SUMMARY
Respondent filed an Amended Complaint for Partition and Accounting with
Damages (Amended Complaint) against her siblings, one of whom was the petitioner.
The respondent alleged that she and the defendant's siblings are compulsory heirs of
their late mother, and that she did not receive her lawful share on her mother’s estate.
Thus, praying to order the partition and distribution of their late mother’s entire estate,
that she (respondent) be awarded her lawful share, and order the defendant's siblings
to pay.

During the direct examination of the respondent in the Pre-Trial, the parties
agreed to refer the case to mediation. RTC then approved the said agreement.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the decision of RTC, however, the appellate court
denied the appeal.

DOCTRINE
An oral partition may be valid and binding upon the heirs; there is no law that
requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

Under Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, "there is nothing in said section
from which it can be inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential requisite
to the validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral partition is valid.”

───※ ·❆· ※───

47
NTC v. Bermuda Development Corp.
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 214782 April 3, 2019
SUMMARY
On July 2010, RTC dismissed Petitioner TransCo’s appeal in the Unlawful
Detainer case for being “moot and academic” because with the filing of an expropriation
proceeding covering subject property by defendant-appellant TransCo and possession
thereof having been formally delivered to it already per Sheriff’s Report.

DOCTRINE
The proper recourse is for the ejectment court: (1) to dismiss the case without
prejudice to the landowner filing the proper action for recovery of just compensation
and consequential damages; or (2) to dismiss the case and direct the public utility
corporation to institute the proper expropriation or condemnation proceedings and to
pay the just compensation and consequential damages assessed therein; or (3) to
continue with the case as if it were an expropriation case and determine the just
compensation and consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, if
the ejectment court has jurisdiction over the value of the subject land.

───※ ·❆· ※───

BDO Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Great Domestic Insurance

Company of The Philippines, Inc.
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 205286 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
Respondent spouses Chao obtained from petitioner BDO loans evidenced by two
promissory notes for the amounts of P5.9 million and P3.3 million. As security for the
payment of these loans, respondents Sps. Chao executed in favor of petitioner BDO a
Chattel Mortgage.

RTC granted the motion for writ of execution but clarified that the liability of
respondent Great Domestic was only P5 million. Thus, BDO filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 before the CA arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
in finding that respondent Great Domestic’s liability is only P5 million. The CA dismissed
outright the petition based on procedural grounds.

DOCTRINE
An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would
not constitute res judicata and litis pendencia is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and
nullification of the entire proceedings, given that the evils sought to be prevented by
the said certification are not present.

48
The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation,
nor the successor of the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different
name, and its character is in no respect changed. A change in the corporate name does
not make a new corporation, and whether effected by special act or under a general
law, has no effect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or
liabilities.

Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany the petition. The
test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material
allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of
grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Mandagan v. Jose M. Valero Corporation

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 215118 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
Respondent JMV Corporation (JMV) extended an accommodation in favor of
petitioner Maria Mandagan (Mandagan) by allowing her to use its corporate name and
account for a car loan intended for her personal use. JMV then entered into a lease-to-
own arrangement with BPI covering a Kia sedan car. The parties agreed that upon full
payment of the car, Mandagan would in turn purchase it from JMV. Mandagan explicitly
agreed that ownership over the vehicle will only be transferred to her upon her full
payment of the costs to JMV.

MeTC found Mandagan guilty of 8 counts of violation of BP 22. On appeal, the

RTC reversed the MeTC’s decision and acquitted Mandagan. Aggrieved, JMV Corporation
brought the case before the CA via Rule 65 petition for certiorari, claiming grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the RTC in acquitting Mandagan. JMV Corporation argued
that the prosecution was indeed able to prove that the demand letter precipitating the
complaint was received by petitioner Mandagan long before its filing. The CA granted
the petition and reinstated the MeTC’s decision. Mandagan filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied. Mandagan then filed a petition for appeal on certiorari
under Rule 45.

DOCTRINE
A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable. The Court is not
unaware that, in some situations, it had allowed a review from a judgment of acquittal
through the extraordinary remedy of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. A survey of these
exceptional instances would, however, show that such review was only allowed where
the prosecution was denied due process or where the trial was a sham. The office of a
writ of certiorari is narrow in scope and does not encompass an error of law or a mistake
in the appreciation of evidence. As a corrective writ, the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari is reserved only for jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to correct a lower
tribunal's factual findings.
49
───※ ·❆· ※───

Spouses Rodriguez v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 209748 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
The Spouses Balbino and Nicolas allege that their lots have been adversely
affected by the workings and constructions of the Spouses Rodriguez on the road. During
the proceedings, the Spouses Rodriguez filed their motion for reconsideration which was
denied, and without first filing an appeal to the Office of the President, the Spouses
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

DOCTRINE
For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a
legitimate grievance. An available recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious
effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy.

In the instant petition, the Spouses Rodriguez failed to show why certiorari was
proper, failing to seek the proper recourse required by law.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Bernardo v. Soriano
CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 200104 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioner Iluminada C. Bernardo (Bernardo) filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus
praying that Evangeline Lawas, Head Social Worker of the DSWD in Mandaluyong City,
be ordered to produce the person of her minor granddaughter, Stephanie Verniese B.
Soriano before the RTC of Mandaluyong City.

CA held that because Soriano seasonably filed her own Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the RTC's Decision dated August 5, 2010, the said Decision of the RTC
is not an appealable judgment despite the denial of Bernardo's Motion for
Reconsideration. The CA held that despite the RTC's Decision being a judgment on the
merits of the case and despite the RTC having already disposed Bernardo's Motion for
Reconsideration of such Decision, the pendency of Soriano's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration warranted the treatment of the RTC's Decision as an interlocutory order

50
and not a final judgment that can be appealed, as there was still something left for the
RTC to do, which was to decide the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

DOCTRINE
A party's ability to file his/her own appeal upon receipt of the assailed judgment
or the denial of a motion for reconsideration challenging the said judgment within the
reglementary period of 15 days is not affected by the other parties' exercise of discretion
to file their respective motions for reconsideration.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Heirs of Sadhwani v. Sadhwani

CAGUIOA, J.
GR No. 217365 August 14, 2019
SUMMARY
The instant dispute involves conflicting claims of ownership over: 1) a parcel of
land located at 58 Aries St., Bel Air, Makati, and 2) condominium unit 602-A at the Ritz
Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. The subject properties were allegedly purchased by
the Spouses Satramdas and Kishnibai Sadhwani and the titles thereof were allegedly
placed in the name of their son, herein respondent Gop S. Sadhwani, in trust for his
parents and siblings.

The other legitimate children of the Sps. Sadhwani filed a Complaint for
Reconveyance, Partition, Accounting, Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Injunction
and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction & Temporary
Restraining Order against their brother Gop, his wife Kanta, Union Bank of the
Philippines, Philippine Savings Bank, and the Register of Deeds of Makati City, praying
that they likewise be declared lawful owners of the subject properties as heirs and
legitimate children of the Sps. Sadhwani, in accordance with a purported express trust
agreement and the provisions of the Civil Code on succession.

DOCTRINE
Rule 41, Section 1 expressly states that no appeal may be taken from an order
dismissing an action without prejudice. In such cases, the remedy available to the
aggrieved party is to file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.

───※ ·❆· ※───

51
Republic v. Macabagdal
CAGUIOA, J.
G.R. No. 203948 January 22, 2020
SUMMARY
An expropriation case was filed by Petitioner Republic. Leonor Macabagdal
prayed that she be substituted as party defendant alleging that she is a real party in
interest, being the sole heir of the registered owner as evidenced by an unregistered
extrajudicial deed of partition.

DOCTRINE
Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court an unregistered affidavit of self-
adjudication or extrajudicial settlement does not bind third ·persons with respect to the
adjudication of property, however, there is no provision in the Rules of Court which
states that "the instrument cannot be used to prove that one is an heir" due to the sheer
fact that it was not registered before the Register of Deeds.

───※ ·❆· ※───

52