Case Law - Case Digest - Nc

8/9/2019 Case Law - Case Digest - Nc

1/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES

CASE LAW

Republic vs Extelcom, [373 SCRA 316; GR 14706, !"#u"$% 1&, '00'(

Facts: National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) granted Bayantel the provisionalauthority to operate a Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS) on its own initiative

applying Rule !" Section # o$ its %&' Rules o$ ractice and rocedures

Respondent *+telcom contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which

were $iled with the ,$$ice o$ the National -dministrative Register where the phrase .on its own

initiative were deleted and since the %%# Revised Rules were $iled with the 0 1aw Center

Issue: 2,N the %%# Revised Rules which was $iled in the 0 1aw Center is the law in $orce

and e$$ect in granting provisional authority

Held ) No There is nothing in the -dministrative Code o$ %&' which implies that the $iling o$

the rules with the 0 1aw Center is the operative act that gives the rules $orce and e$$ect The

National -dministrative Register is merely a bulletin o$ codi$ied rules ublication in the

,$$icial 3a4ette or a newspaper o$ general circulation is a condition sine 5ua non be$ore

statutes" rules and regulations can ta6e e$$ect*

A+ -$uits Co$p* et "l vs Cou$t o. Appe"ls, L"#/ "# o. t2e +2ilippi#es

Facts: -7C and 8i9o lantation :nc were owners o$ ! parcels o$ land (##&;< has) located in

San :sidro" Tagum" =avao ,n > ,ctober %%!" the two voluntarily o$$ered to sell the

properties to the =-R

=-R o$$ered &;%M $or -7C?s land and ;@@< $or 8:?s land -7C" 8: and =-R cannot

agree on a price hence the Compl"i#t .o$ ete$mi#"tio# o. !ust Compe#s"tio# "s .ile/

be.o$e t2e AR A/5u/ic"tio# o"$/ o# 14 -eb$u"$% 17

The =-R-B $ailed to render a decision on the valuation o$ the land $or three years But

nevertheless" the government deposited >;M into -7C?s account and @!M into 8:?s account

as down payment in %%; The =-R also caused the titling o$ the land in the name o$ theRepublic o$ the hilippines 1ater" titles were given to $armers under the C-R

=ue to =-R-B?s $ailure to ad9udicate" A-C "#/ + .ile/ " compl"i#t .o$ /ete$mi#"tio# o.

5ust compe#s"tio# be.o$e t2e R8C o. "v"o 2ic2 $e#/e$e/ " /ecisio# i# ."vo$ o. A-C

"#/ + The RTC ruled" based on the reports it gathered $rom assessors" that the purchase

price should be higher than what was o$$ered by =-RA that the purchase price should be at


2/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES HELD: No -7C?s and 8:?s land were ta6en in %%; without 9ust compensation =-R-B" an

agency o$ the =-R which was commissioned by law to determine 9ust compensation" sat on the

cases $or three years" which was the reason that -7C and 8: $iled the cases be$ore the RTC

The RTC?s $inding is to be sustained as it based it?s ruling on evidence =-R was given chance

to support its ruling on why the purchase price should be at a lower amount but =-R $ailed to

present such evidence To allow the ta6ing o$ landowners? properties" and to leave them emptyhanded while government withholds compensation is undoubtedly oppressive

The concept o$ 9ust compensation embraces not only the correct determination o$ the amount to

be paid to the owners o$ the land" but also the payment o$ the land within a reasonable time

$rom its ta6ing 2ithout prompt payment" compensation cannot be considered .9ust inasmuch

as the property owner is being made to su$$er the conse5uences o$ being immediately deprived

o$ his land while being made to wait $or a decade or more be$ore actually receiving the amount

necessary to cope with his loss

The power o$ e+propriation is by no means absolute (as indeed no power is absolute) The

limitation is $ound in the constitutional in9unction that .private property shall not be ta6en $or

public use without 9ust compensation and in the abundant 9urisprudence that has evolved $rom

the interpretation o$ this principle Basically" the re5uirements $or a proper e+ercise o$ the

power are

() public use and (>) 9ust compensation Section !' o$ Republic -ct No ;;!' (Comprehensive

-grarian Re$orm 1aw) provides

S*C !' Special Durisdiction E The Special -grarian Courts shall have original and e+clusive

9urisdiction over all petitions $or the determination o$ 9ust compensation to landowners" and the prosecution o$ all criminal o$$enses under this -ct The Rules o$ Court shall apply to all

proceedings be$ore the Special -grarian Courts" unless modi$ied by this -ct Section ' o$

Republic -ct No ;;!'" which is particularly relevant" providing as it does the guideposts $or

the determination o$ 9ust compensation" reads" as $ollows

Sec ' =etermination o$ Dust Compensation E :n determining 9ust compensation" the cost o$

ac5uisition o$ the land" the current value o$ li6e properties" its nature" actual use and income" the

sworn valuation by the owner" the ta+ declarations" and the assessment made by government

assessors shall be considered The social and economic bene$its contributed by the $armers and

the $armwor6ers and by the 3overnment to the property as well as the nonpayment o$ ta+es or

loans secured $rom any government $inancing institution on the said land shall be considered as

additional $actors to determine its valuation

Note should be ta6en that in said -ppraisal Report" permanent improvements on -7C?s and

8:?s lands have been introduced and $ound e+isting" eg" all weatherroad networ6" airstrip"

pier" irrigation system" pac6ing houses" among others" wherein substantial amount o$ capital

$unding have been invested in putting them up

The agricultural properties o. A-C "#/ + "$e 5ust " sto#e9s t2$o .$om t2e $esi/e#ti"l"#/:o$ i#/ust$i"l sectio#s o. 8"um Cit%, " ."ct AR s2oul/ #eve$ i#o$e The mar6et value

“If you believe, you will reeive w!"#ever you "s$ for i% &r"yer'(

Matthew 21:22


3/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESo$ the property (plus the conse5uential damages less conse5uential bene$its) is determined by

such $actors as the value o$ li6e properties" its actual or potential use" its si4e" shape and

location

LES A> E?EL+=E>8 CR+*, vs* +LA8>@= GR@+=E8ALSCR+RA8>G*R* >o* 171 G*R* >o* 10674 G*R* >o* 11141 G*R* >o*

13&'7Auust 14, '00

FACTS : ,lympic was granted B=i#i# Le"se Co#t$"ctsB by the Secretary o$ the =epartment

o$ *nvironment and Natural Resources (=*NR) covering mining are as located in alawan

2ith the passage o$ Republic -ct No '%@> or the hilippine Mining -ct o$ %%! (Mining -ct)"

these mining lease contracts became the sub9ect o$ Mineral roduction Sharing -greement

(MS-) applications by ,lympic

,lympic entered into an ,perating -greement with latinum" under which latinum was given

the e+clusive right to control" possess" manage/operate" and conduct mining operations" and to

mar6et or dispose mining products $ound in sub9ect mining areas $or a period o$ twenty$ive

years

:n return" latinum bound itsel$ to pay ,lympic a royalty $ee o$ >F o$ the gross revenues

,lympic made various attempts to terminate the ,perating -greement and to deprive latinum

o$ its rights and interests over the sub9ect mining areas" "llei# t2"t +l"ti#um committe/

$oss viol"tio#s o. t2e pe$"ti# A$eeme#t ,lympic $iled administrative cases against

latinum intent with the intent to terminate the ,perating -greement and to revo6e latinum?sSmall Scale Mining ermits

=uring the pendency o$ these cases" ,lympic trans$erred its MS- applications to Citinic6el

via a =eed o$ -ssignment without notice to or the consent o$ latinum" which was approved by

the Regional =irector o$ Mines and 3eosciences Bureau latinum $iled a complaint $or

5uieting o$ title" damages" breach o$ contract" and speci$ic per$ormance against ,lympic be$ore

the RTC o$ uerto rincesa" alawan ,lympic $iled a motion to dismiss alleging that the trial

court was without 9urisdiction to rule on the issues raised in the complaint" as these involved a

mining dispute re5uiring the technical e+pertise o$ the anel o$ -rbitrators (,-)

ISSUE ) 2hether the RTC or the ,- has 9urisdiction over latinum?s complaint $or 5uieting o$

title" breach o$ contract" damages and speci$ic per$ormance

RULING: RTC has 9urisdiction -s held in the case o$ 3on4ales v Clima+-rimco Mining" The

resolution o$ the validity or voidness o$ the contracts remains a legal or 9udicial 5uestion as it

re5uires the e+ercise o$ 9udicial $unction :t re5uires the ascertainment o$ what laws are

applicable to the dispute" the interpretation and application o$ those laws" and the rendering o$ a

9udgment based thereon


Matthew 21:22


4/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES Clearly" the dispute is not a mining con$lict :t is essentially 9udicial The complaint was not

merely $or the determination o$ rights under the mining contracts since the very validity o$

those contracts is put in issue -rbitration be$ore the anel o$ -rbitrators is proper only when

there is a disagreement between the parties as to some provisions o$ the contract between them"

which needs the interpretation and the application o$ that particular 6nowledge and e+pertise

possessed by members o$ that anel

Lim vs* +"cui#

[G*R* >o* 11&044* !"#u"$% '7, 1&(

FACTS: The Charter o$ the City o$ Manila was enacted by Congress on & Dune %@% (R- No

@o* 771 was issued by then resident Marcos The

decree" entitled .Revoi# All +oe$s "#/ Aut2o$it% o. Loc"l Gove$#me#tsF To 3rant

7ranchise" 1icense or ermit -nd Regulate 2agers ,r Betting By The ublic ,n 8orse -nd

=og Races" Dai-lai ,r Bas5ue elota" -nd ,ther 7orms ,$ 3ambling" in Section # thereo$"e+pressly revo6ed all e+isting $ranchises and permits issued by local governments

:n May %&&" -ssociated =evelopment Corporation (-=C) tried to operate a Dai-lai The

government through 3ames and -musement Board intervened and invo6ed residential =ecree

No '' which e+pressly revo6ed all e+isting $ranchises and permits to operate all $orms o$

gambling $acilities (including Dai-lai) by local governments -=C assails the constitutionality

o$ = No ''

ISSUE: 2hether or not = No '' is violative o$ the e5ual protection and nonimpairment

clauses o$ the Constitution

HELD: N, = No '' is valid and constitutional

RATIO: resumption against unconstitutionality There is nothing on record to show or even

suggest that = No '' has been repealed" altered or amended by any subse5uent law or

presidential issuance (when the e+ecutive still e+ercised legislative powers)

Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue o$ the continued e+istence o$ -=C?s $ranchise by

reason o$ the unconstitutionality o$ = No '' was settled in 3R No !


5/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESnulli$ying = No '' as unconstitutional" since only the Court *n Banc has that power under

-rticle G:::" Section @(>) o$ the Constitution

-nd on the 5uestion o$ whether or not the government is estopped $rom contesting -=C?s

possession o$ a valid $ranchise" the wellsettled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by

the mista6es or errors" i$ any" o$ its o$$icials or agents (Republic v :ntermediate -ppellateCourt" >


6/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES Issue: W> t2e $e.e$$"l to t2e cou$t e# b"#c is 5usti.ie/ o# t2e $ou#/ t2"t t2e issues "$e

o. .i$st imp$essio#

Held: No

Ratio The issues presented be$ore us by the movants are matters o$ no e+traordinary import to

merit the attention o$ the Court en banc

The issue o$ whether or not the power o$ the local government units to reclassi$y lands is

sub9ect to the approval o$ the =-R is no longer novel" this having been decided by this Court in

the case o$ rovince o$ Camarines Sur" et al vs Court o$ -ppeals wherein we held that local

government units need not obtain the approval o$ the AR to co#ve$t o$ $ecl"ssi.% l"#/s .$om

"$icultu$"l to #o#D"$icultu$"l use Moreover" the =ecision sought to be reconsidered was

arrived at by a unanimous vote o$ all $ive (!)members o$ the Second =ivision o$ this Court

Stated otherwise" this Second =ivision is o$ the opinion that the matters raised by movants are

nothing new and do not deserve the consideration o$ the Court en banc Thus" the participation

o$ the $ull Court in the resolution o$ movants? motions $or reconsideration would be

inappropriate

Issue: 2,N the re$erral to the court en banc parta6es o$ the nature o$ a second MR

Held: Ies

Ratio: The contention" there$ore" that our Resolution o$ November '" %%& did not dispose o$

the earlier MR o$ the =ecision dated -pril >@" %%& is $lawed Conse5uently" the present MR

necessarily parta6es o$ the nature o$ a second motion $or reconsideration which" according to

the clear and unambiguous language o$ Rule !;" Section @" in relation to Rule !>" Section >" o$

the %%' Rules o$ Civil rocedure" is prohibited True" there are e+ceptional cases when thisCourt may entertain a second motion $or reconsideration" such as where there are

e+traordinarily persuasive reasons *ven then" we have ruled that such second MRs must be

$iled with e+press leave o$ court $irst obtained :n this case" not only did movants $ail to as6 $or

prior leave o$ court" but more importantly" they have been unable to show that there are

e+ceptional reasons $or us to give due course to their second motions $or reconsideration

Stripped o$ the arguments $or re$erral o$ this incident to the Court en banc" the motions sub9ect

o$ this resolution are nothing more but rehashes o$ the motions $or reconsideration which have

been denied in the Resolution o$ November '" %%& To be sure" the allegations contained

therein have already been raised be$ore and passed upon by this Court in the said Resolution

Issue: 2,N the 2in2in Resolution was valid

Held: No

Ratio This re$ers to the resolution .by authority o$ the resident modi$ying the =ecision dated

>% March%%; o$ the , through *+ecutive Secretary Ruben Torres NHSRM=C?s (Norberto

Huisumbing) -pplication $or Conversion is approved only with respect to @@ hectares as

recommended by the =- The remaining


7/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES,$$ice o$ the resident had already become $inal and e+ecutory even prior to the $iling o$ the

MR which became the basis o$ the said .2in2in Resolution 2hile it may be true that on its

$ace the nulli$ication o$ the .2in2in Resolution was grounded on a procedural rule

pertaining to the reglementary period to appeal or move $or reconsideration" the underlying

consideration there$or was the protection o$ the substantive rights o$ petitioners .Dust as a

losing party has the right to $ile an appeal within the prescribed period" the winning party alsohas the correlative right to en9oy the $inality o$ the resolution o$ his/her case :n other words"

the $inality o$ the March >%" %%; , =ecision accordingly vested appurtenant rights to the land

in dispute on petitioners as well as on the people o$ Bu6idnon and other parts o$ the country

who stand to be bene$ited by the development o$ the property Be$ore $inally disposing o$ these

pending matters" we $eel it necessary to rule once and $or all on the legal standing o$ intervenors

in this case :n their present motions" intervenors insist that they are real parties in interest

inasmuch as they have already been issued certi$icates o$ land ownership award" orC1,-s" and

that while they are seasonal $armwor6ers at the plantation" they have been identi$ied by the

=-R as 5uali$ied bene$iciaries o$ the property These arguments are" however" nothing new as

in $act they have already been raised in intervenors? earlier motion $or reconsideration o$ our

-pril >@" %%& =ecision -gain as e+pressed in the opinion o$ Mr Dustice Martine4" intervenors"

who are admittedly not regular but seasonal $armwor6ers" have no legal or actual and

substantive interest over the sub9ect land inasmuch as they have no right to own the land

Rather" their right is limited only to a 9ust share o$ the $ruits o$ the land Moreover" the .2in

2in Resolution itsel$ states that the 5uali$ied bene$iciaries have yet to be care$ully and

meticulously determined by the =epartment o$ -grarian Re$orm -bsent any de$initive $inding

o$ the =-R" intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with su$$icient interest in the

controversy as to be 5uali$ied to intervene in this case 1i6ewise" the issuance o$ the C1,-Js to

them does not grant them the re5uisite standing in view o$ the nullity o$ the .2in2inResolution No legal rights can emanate $rom a resolution that is null and void MeloBy

mandate o$ the Constitution" cases heard by a division when the re5uired ma9ority o$ at least #

votes in the division is not obtained are to be heard and decided by the Court *n Banc The

deliberations o$ the %&; Constitutional Commission disclose that i$ the case is not decided in a

division by a ma9ority vote" it goes to the Court *n Banc and not to a larger division :n a

situation where a division o$ ! has only @ members" the !th member having inhibited himsel$ or

is otherwise not in a position to participate" or has retired" a minimum o$ # votes would still be

re5uired be$ore there can be any valid decision or resolution by that division There may" then"

be instances when a deadloc6 may occur" ie" the votes tied at >> :t is my humble view that

under the clear and une5uivocal provisions o$ the %&; Constitution" i$ the re5uired ma9ority is

not reached in a division" the case should automatically go to Court *n Banc

: submit that the re5uirement o$ # votes e5ually applies to motions $or reconsideration because

the provision contemplates .cases or .matters (which $or me has no material distinction

inso$ar as divisions are concerned) heard by a division" and a motion $or reconsideration cannot

be divorced $rom the decision in a case that it see6s to be reconsidered Conse5uently" i$ the

re5uired minimum ma9ority o$ # votes is not met" the matter o$ the motion $or reconsideration

has to be heard by the Court *n Banc" as mandated by the Constitution (par #" Sec @" -rt

G:::) To say that the motion is lost in the division on a >> vote" isto construe something whichcannot be sustained by a reading o$ the Constitution To argue that a motion $or reconsideration


Matthew 21:22


8/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESis not a .case but only a .matter which does not concern a case" so that" even though the vote

thereon in the division is >>" the matter or issue is not re5uired to elevated to the Court *n

Banc" is to engage in a lot o$ un$ounded hair splitting

EGAR ?* ES8AR!A v* EWAR -* RA>AA "#/ t2e >* =@S=A>

-niano - =esierto (now succeeded by 8on Simeon Marcelo)" and his =*0TI

,MB0=SM-N $or Mindanao" 8on -ntonio * Galen4uela

3R No !%#@" >; Dune >


9/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES,mbudsman may or may not do" since the purpose o$ the Constitution is to provide simply a

$ramewor6 within which to build the institution

ISSUES:

) 2hether or not there is substantial evidence to hold *stari9a liable $or dishonesty and

grave misconductA>) 2hether or not the power o$ the ,mbudsman to directly remove" suspend" demote" $ine"

or censure erring o$$icials is constitutional

R*C*NT D0R:SR0=*NC* E ,1:T:C-1 1-2

HELD: The petition is =*N:*=

*stari9a is liable $or dishonesty and grave misconduct

*stari9a did not deny that he went to the =-: o$$ice to collect" and that he actually received"

the money which he demanded $rom the =-: as monthly contribution Since there was no

pending transaction between the - and the =-:" he had no reason to go to the latter?s o$$ice

to collect any money *ven i$ he was authori4ed to assist in the collection o$ money due the

agency" he should have issued an o$$icial receipt $or the transaction" but he did not do so

The powers o$ the ,mbudsman are not merely recommendatory :n passing Rep -ct No ;''


10/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES Held: No -c5uitted

SB term ; yrs :$ sectoral/group rep term is coterminus with sectoral term

> LB term till last Sunday" November %&! or until new o$$icers have 5uali$ied

# 1enlie can hold over

1aw doesn?t say he can or is prevented $rom doing so Thus he can stay until succession5uali$ies

=uldulao v ramos law abhors vacuum in public o$$ices

7oley v mcnab hold over avoid hiatus in per$ormance o$ government $unction

Barnes v 8olbroo6 holdover to prevent public convenience $rom su$$ering due to vacancy

@ Red not 5uali$ied ,ath administered by Batasang ambansa member who?s not authori4ed to

do so is invalid

! lac6 o$ criminal intent

appointment not recogni4ed since there were no authenticated copies o$ appointment papers

7rancisco sought advice o$ M:13 Secretary imentel regarding Red?s papers rovincial

Memo Circular &; No authentication $rom resident can?t assume positionA MemoCirc &;

' SB" Splung" Splala 8old o$$ice" be compensated until replaced by president or M:13

*+ecutive Silence on hold over $or #< yrs not e5ual to prohibition

7rancisco well respected erhaps he 9ust made erroneous interpretation Mabutol v ascual

and Cabungcal v Cordova misrepresentation is not e5ual to bad $aith" thus not liable

7alsi$ication no document statement $rom o$$ended to narrate $acts and $acts were not proven

wrong or $alse

Conspiracy not proven should be established separately $or crime and must meet same

degree o$ proo$

Strong enough to show community o$ criminal design Blood relation is not e5uivalent to conspiracy

@SA vs* RuiH G*R* >o* LD3&64&, ="% '', 1&

Facts: The 0S had a naval base in Subic" ambales which was one o$ those provided in the

Military Bases -greement between the hils and the 0S The 0S made an invitation $or the

submission o$ bids $or the repair o$ wharves in said base rivate respondent *ligio de 3u4man

O Co" :nc responded to the invitation and submitted bids Subse5uent thereto" the private

respondent received $rom the 0S > telegrams re5uesting it to con$irm its price proposals and $or

the name o$ its bonding company The private respondent complied with the re5uests

Therea$ter" private respondent received a letter which said that the company did not 5uali$y to

receive an award $or the pro9ects because o$ its previous unsatis$actory per$ormance rating The

private respondent sued the 0S and the members o$ the *ngineering Command o$ the 0S Navy

Issue) 2hether or not the complaint may prosper

Held: The traditional rule o$ State immunity e+empts a State $rom being sued in the courts o$

another State without its consent or waiver This rule is a necessary conse5uence o$ the principles o$ independence and e5uality o$ States 8owever" the rules o$ :nternational 1aw are


Matthew 21:22

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/usa-vs-ruiz-gr-no-l-35645-may-22-1985.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/usa-vs-ruiz-gr-no-l-35645-may-22-1985.html


11/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESnot petri$iedA they are constantly developing and evolving -nd because the activities o$ states

have multiplied" it has been necessary to distinguish themPbetween sovereign and

governmental acts (9ure imperii) and private" commercial and proprietary acts (9ure gestionis)

The result is that State immunity now e+tends only to acts 9ure imperii

- State may be said to have descended to the level o$ an individual and can thus be deemed to

have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts :t does notapply where the contract relates to the e+ercise o$ its sovereign $unctions :n the present case"

the pro9ects are an integral part o$ the naval base which is devoted to the de$ense o$ both the 0S

and the hils" indisputably a $unction o$ the government o$ the highest order They are not

utili4ed $or nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes

A$t I, Sec'

mbu/sm"# vs* =o5ic" GR 14646

The case had its inception on >% =ecember %%%" when twentytwo o$$icials and employees o$

the ,$$ice o$ the =eputy ,mbudsman (,MB) $or the Gisayas" led by its two directors" $iled a

$ormal complaint with the ,$$ice o$ the ,mbudsman re5uesting an investigation on the basis o$

allegations that then =eputy ,mbudsman $or the Gisayas" private respondent -rturo Mo9ica"

committed the $ollowing Se+ual harassment against Rayvi aduaGaronaA > Mulcting

money $rom con$idential employees Dames -lueta and *den LiamcoA and # ,ppression against

all employees in not releasing the '">


12/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESadministrative investigation $rom proceeding against the private respondent" given that" as

pointed out by the petitioner" the $ormer?s retirement bene$its have been placed on hold in view

o$ the provisions o$ Sections > and # o$ the -nti3ra$t and Corrupt ractices -ct

o$5" v* C=ELEC

G*R* >o* 1334&; '& SCRA 1&7Septembe$ 3, 1

Facts: Dose T Capco" Dr was elected Gice Mayor o$ ateros on Danuary &" %&& $or a term

ending Dune #'" %%&" Capco $iled a certi$icate o$

candidacy $or Mayor o$ ateros relative to the May " %%& elections etitioner Ben9amin

Bor9a" Dr" who was also a candidate $or Mayor" sought Capco?s dis5uali$ication on the theory

that the latter would already have served as mayor $or three consecutive terms by Dune #o* 1436 ecembe$ '3, '00

Brion" D

Facts: The respondent 2il$redo 7 -silo ( Asilo) was elected councilor o$ 1ucena City $or three

consecutive terms $or the %%&>


13/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESsuspended him $or %< days in relation with a criminal case he then $aced This Court, however,

subsequently lifted the Sandiganbayan’s suspension order; hence, he resumed performing the

functions of his office and finished his term

Issue: :s the p$eve#tive suspe#sio# o$ an elected public o$$icial an interruption o$ his term o$

o$$ice $or purposes o$ the threeterm limit rule under Section &" -rticle K o$ the Constitutionand Section @#(b) o$ Republic -ct No ';< ( !A "#$%, or the 1ocal 3overnment Code)

Ruling:

Ge#e$"l $euisites .o$ t2e "pplic"tio# o. t2e t2$ee te$m limit

that the o$$icial concerned has been elected $or three consecutive terms in the same local

government postA and

> that he has $ully served three consecutive terms

+eople v* G"lit

GR >o* LD&1770, '0 ="$c2 1&F

Facts: 7rancisco 3alit was pic6ed up by the Montalban police on suspicion $or the 6illing o$

Mrs Natividad 7rancisco" a widow -$ter he was ta6en by the Montalban police" the case was

re$erred to the National Bureau o$ :nvestigation in view o$ the alleged limited $acilities o$ the

Montalban police station -ccordingly" 3alit was brought to the NB: where he was investigated

by a team headed by NB: -gent Carlos 7lores The $ollowing day" 3alit voluntarily e+ecuted a

Salaysay admitting participation in the commission o$ the crime" also implicating Duling and

abling =ulay as his companions in its commission -s a result" he was charged with the crimeo$ Robbery with 8omicide be$ore the Circuit Trial Court o$ asig =uring trial" a witness stated

that he overheard 3alit 5uarrelling with his wi$e about his intention to leave their residence

immediately because he and his two companions robbed and 6illed Natividad 7ernando ,n the

other hand" 3alit denied participation in the commission o$ the crime and also assailed the

admissibility o$ the e+tra9udicial con$ession e+tracted $rom him through torture" $orce and

intimidation 8e recounted that he was mauled and tortured by the NB: o$$icers by covering his

$ace with a rag and pushing his $ace into a toilet bowl $ull o$ human waste 8e had no counsel

when the con$ession was e+tracted $rom him 8e admitted what the investigating o$$icers

wanted him to admit and he signed the con$ession they prepared 1ater" against his will" he posed $or pictures as directed by his investigators" purporting it to be a reenactment This

notwithstanding" the trial court $ound 3alit guilty and sentenced him to su$$er the death penalty

:ssue 2/N 7rancisco 3alit should be ac5uitted on the ground that his e+tra9udicial con$ession

is inadmissible

Ruling I*S The evidence presented by the prosecution does not support a conviction :n $act"

the $indings o$ the trial court relative to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by

competent evidence There were no eyewitnesses" no property recovered $rom the accused" no

state witnesses" and not even $ingerprints o$ the accused at the scene o$ the crime The onlyevidence against the accused is his alleged con$ession The alleged con$ession and the pictures


Matthew 21:22


14/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESo$ the supposed reenactment are inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained in a

manner contrary to law 3alit ac5uitted

Issue: 8ow is the inadmissibility o$ the e+tra9udicial con$ession shown

Ruling: Through the statement itsel$ The $irst 5uestion was a very long Tagalog 5uestion

$ollowed by a monosyllabicanswer :t does not satis$y the re5uirements o$ the law that theaccused be in$ormed o$ his rights under the Constitution and our laws :nstead" there should be

several short and clear 5uestions and every right e+plained in simple words in a dialect or

language 6nown to the person under investigation The accused is $rom Samar and there is no

showing that he understands Tagalog Moreover" at the time o$ his arrest" the accused was not

permitted to communicate with his lawyer" a relative" or a $riend :n $act" his sisters and other

relatives did not 6now that he had been brought to the NB: $or investigation and it was only

about two wee6s a$ter he had e+ecuted the Salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him

8is statement does not even contain any waiver o$ right to counsel and yet during the

investigation he was not assisted by one -t the supposed reenactment" again accused was not

assisted by the counsel o$ his choice These constitute gross violation o$ his rights

The correct procedure $or peace o$$icers to $ollow when ma6ing an arrest and in conducting a

custodial investigation" according to Morales v once *nrile -t the time the person is arrested"

it shall be the duty o$ the arresting o$$icer to in$orm him o$ the reason o$ the arrest and he must

be shown the warrant o$ arrest" i$ any 8e shall be in$ormed o$ his constitutional right to remain

silent and to counsel" and that any statementhe might ma6e could be used against him The

person arrested shall have the right to communicate with hislawyer" a relative" or anyone he

chooses by the most e+pedient meansQby telephone i$ possibleQor by letteror messenger :t shall

be the duty o$ the arresting o$$icer to see that this is accomplished No custodialinvestigation

shall be conducted unless it be in the presence o$ counsel engaged by the person arrested" by any person on his behal$" or appointed by the court upon petition either o$ the detainee

himsel$ or by anyoneon his behal$ The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not

be valid unless made with theassistance o$ counsel -ny statement obtained in violation o$ the

procedure herein laid down" whethere+culpatory or inculpatory" in whole or in part" shall be

inadmissible in evidence

Trial courts are cautioned to loo6 care$ully into the circumstances surrounding the ta6ing o$

any con$ession"especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving one

2here there is any doubt as toits voluntariness" the same must be re9ected in toto

Jui#to vs Comelec

G* R* >o* 16

FACTS : etitioners *lea4ar Huinto and 3erino - Tolentino" Dr $iled a petition $or certiorari

and prohibition against the C,M*1*C $or issuing a resolution declaring appointive o$$icials

who $iled their certi$icate o$ candidacy as ipso $acto resigned $rom their positions :n this

de$ense" the C,M*1*C avers that it only copied the provision $rom Sec # o$ R- %#;%

ISSUE : 2hether or not the said C,M*1*C resolution was valid


Matthew 21:22

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr189698.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr189698.html


15/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES

HELD: N, :n the 7arias case" the petitioners challenged Sec @ o$ R- % -R REC>SERA8>

FACTS: This is a motion $or reconsideration $iled by the Commission on *lections The latter

moved to 5uestion an earlier decision o$ the Supreme Court declaring Section @ (a) o$

C,M*1*C Resolution No &;'& unconstitutional Section @ (a) o$ C,M*1*C Resolution No

&;'& provides that" -ny person holding a public appointive o$$ice or position including active

members o$ the -rmed 7orces o$ the hilippines" and other o$$icers and employees in

governmentowned or controlled corporations" shall be considered ipso $acto resigned $rom his

o$$ice upon the $iling o$ his certi$icate o$ candidacy Be it noted that petitioners o$ the above

entitled case are appointive o$$icials who intend to be elected in the previously held >


16/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTEScircumstances and conditions both as to privileges con$erred and liabilities en$orced The test

used is reasonableness which re5uires that

The classi$ication rests on substantial distinctionsA

> :t is germane to the purposes o$ the lawA

# :t is not limited to e+isting conditions onlyA and

@ :t applies e5ually to all members o$ the same class:n the case under consideration" there is a substantial distinction between public and elective

o$$icials which has been rendered moot and academic by the ruling made in the case o$ 7arinas"

etl al vs *+ecutive Secretary" et al

Section @ (a) o$ C,M*1*C Resolution No &;'& is constitutional

Jui#to ?* C=ELEC

C,M*1*C issued a resolution declaring appointive o$$icials who $iled their certi$icate o$

candidacy as ipso $acto resigned $rom their positions

FACTS:

etitioners *lea4ar Huinto and 3erino - Tolentino" Dr $iled a petition $or certiorari and

prohibition against the C,M*1*C $or issuing a resolution declaring appointive o$$icials who

$iled their certi$icate o$ candidacy as ipso $acto resigned $rom their positions :n this de$ense"

the C,M*1*C avers that it only copied the provision $rom Sec # o$ R- %#;%

ISSUE:

2hether or not the said C,M*1*C resolution was valid

HELD: N,

:n the 7arias case" the petitioners challenged Sec @ o$ R- %


17/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTESo$$ice" could result in neglect or ine$$iciency in the per$ormance o$ duty because they would be

attending to their campaign rather than to their o$$ice wor6

Sec # o$ R- %#;% pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as

to whether they occupy high positions in government or not Certainly" a utility wor6er in the

government will also be considered as ipso $acto resigned once he $iles his certi$icate o$candidacy $or the election This scenario is absurd $or" indeed" it is unimaginable how he can

use his position in the government to wield in$luence in the political world

The provision s directed to the activity any and all public o$$ices" whether they be partisan or

non partisan in character" whether they be in the national" municipal or brgy level Congress has

not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the $undamental right involved on such a

sweeping scale

7ebruary >>" >


18/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES Ruling: Ies The stated minute resolutions signed by the -ssistant Cler6 o$ Court and the

=eputy Cler6 o$ Court are authentic The signatories are duly authori4ed by the Court -s held

in Borromeo vs Court o$ -ppeals (>;@ SCR- #&&)" minute resolutions are the results o$ the

deliberations by the Dustices o$ the Court but are promulgated by the Cler6 o$ Court or his

assistants to e$$ect prompt dispatch o$ the actions o$ the Court Ies :t is proper $or the Court to

deny -goy?s petition through a minute resolution 2hile the Constitution re5uires every courtto state in its decision clearly and distinctly the $act and the law on which it is based" the

Constitution re5uires the court" in denying due course to a petition $or review" merely to state

the legal basis $or such denial Such legal basis is the absence o$ reversible error in the

challenged decision" resolution or order o$ the court :n addition" when there is no reversible

error in the decision o$ the C- and the Court denies the petition" there is no need $or it to $ully

e+plain the denial" since it already means that it agrees with and adopts the $indings and

conclusions o$ the C- The motion to rescind was denied $or lac6 o$ merit

A%"l" Co$po$"tio# ?S* RSA A>A REAL8<

346 SCRA 633

FACTS: :n -pril %';" appellantpetitioner entered into a transaction with Manuel Sy and Sy

La Lieng where $ormer sold a lot in Salcedo Gillage in Ma6ati The deed o$ sale had some

encumbrances contained in the Special Conditions o$ Sale (SCS) and =eed o$ Restrictions

(=R)" which should be $ollowed by the vendees The stipulations in the SCS are

) a building proposal must be submitted to -yala which must be in accordance with the =R"

>) the construction o$ the building must be completed on or be$ore %'%" and#) that there will be no resale o$ the lot

The =R speci$ied the limits in height and $loor area o$ the building to be constructed 8owever"

Sy and Lieng" $ailed to build a building but nonetheless with the permission o$ -yala" the

vendees sold the said lot to the respondent" Rosa =iana Realty Respondent Company agreed to

abode by the SCS and the =R stipulations rior to the construction" Rosa =iana submitted a

building plan to -yala complying with the =R but it also passed a di$$erent building plan to the

building administrator o$ Ma6ati" which did not comply with the stipulations in the =R 2hile

the building" .The ea6" was being constructed" -yala $iled a case praying that ) Rosa =iana"

be compelled to comply with the =R and build the building in accordance with the building

plan submitted to -yalaA or >) on the alternative" the rescission o$ the deed o$ sale

The trial court ruled in $avor o$ the respondent and thus" Rosa =iana was able to complete the

construction o$ .The ea6 0ndeterred" -yala $iled be$ore the Register o$ =eeds (R=) o$

Ma6ati a cause o$ annotation lis pendens R= re$used to grant -yala such registration $or in the

lower courtA the case is o$ personal action $or a speci$ic per$ormance and/or rescission

8owever" the 1and Registration -uthority (1R-) reversed R=?s ruling The appellate court

upheld the R=?s ruling stating that the case be$ore the trial court is a personal action $or the

cause o$ action arises $rom the alleged violation o$ the =R The trial court sustained therespondent?s point saying that -yala was guilty o$ abandonment and/or estoppels due to its


Matthew 21:22


19/19

DIGESTED CASES LegRes – MAKASIAR NOTES$ailure to en$orce the terms o$ the =R and SCS against Sy and Lieng -yala discriminately

chose which obligor would be made to $ollow certain conditions" which is not $air and legal ,n

appeal" the C- a$$irmed the lower court?s ruling 8ence" this petition

ISSUE: 2hether or not Rosa =iana committed a breach o$ contract

RULING: Ies" the Supreme Court ruled that Rosa =iana committed a breach o$ contract by

submitting a building plan to -yala complying with the =R and submitting a di$$erent building

plan to the building administrator o$ Ma6ati" which did not comply with the stipulations in the

=R

Contractual ,bligations between parties have the $orce o$ law between them and absent any

allegation that the same are contrary to law" morals" good customs" public order or public policy"

they must complied with in good $aith

Thus" the assailed decision o$ the Court o$ -ppeals is reversed and set aside


Documents

Case Law - Case Digest - Nc