CASES 25-48

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-25-48 1/143

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015

ALEJANDRO C. ALENDRAS, JR., Petitioner , v. ALE!IS C. ALENDRAS, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, C.J."

We resolve the Petition for Review filed by petitioner Alejandro C. Almendras, Jr., from the 27 January 2!"e#ision and 2$ Au%ust 27 Resolution of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. C* +o. 7$$.- he CAaffirmed the "e#ision and /rder of the Re%ional rial Court &RC' in Civil Case +o. 02 findin% petitionerliable for dama%es.#ralawred

T#E FACTS

As #ulled from the CA, petitioner sent letters with similar #ontents on 7 1ebruary -! to 3ouse 4pea5erJose de *ene#ia, Jr., and on 2! 1ebruary -! to "r. +emesio Prudente, President of /il Carriers, 6n#. he

#ontroversial portion of the first and se#ond letters reads as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

his is to notify your %ood self and your staff that one A89:64 ;"/"/+)< C. A8=9+"RA4, a brother, is notvested with any authority to liaison or transa#t any business with any department, offi#e, or bureau, publi#or otherwise, that has bearin% or relation with my offi#e, mandates or fun#tions. > > >.

+oteworthy to mention, perhaps, is the fa#t that =r. Ale>is ;"odon%< C. Almendras, a re5nown bla#5mailer,is a bitter rival in the just #on#luded ele#tion of -? who ran a%ainst the wishes of my father, the lateCon%ressman Alejandro ". Almendras, 4r. 3e has #aused pain to the family when he filed #ases a%ainst ushis brothers and sisters, and worst a%ainst his own mother.

6 deemed that his a#t of transa#tin% business that affe#ts my person and offi#ial fun#tions is mali#ious inpurpose, done with ill motive and part of a lar%er plan of harassment a#tivities to perfor#e realise his e%oisti#and evil obje#tives.

=ay 6 therefore re@uest the assistan#e of your offi#e in #ir#ulatin% the above information to #on#ernedoffi#ials and se#retariat employees of the 3ouse of Representatives.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

> > > >

hese letters were alle%edly printed, distributed, #ir#ulated and published by petitioner, assisted by Atty.Roberto 8ayu%, in "i%os, "avao del 4ur and ueBon City, with evident bad faith and manifest mali#e todestroy respondent Ale>is C. Almendras %ood name. 3en#e, the latter filed an a#tion for dama%es arisin%from libel and defamation a%ainst petitioner in the Re%ional rial Court &RC', Dran#h -, "i%os City.#ralawred

T#E RTC R$LING

6n the #ourse of trial at the lower #ourt, petitioner failed to present any eviden#e, e>#ept his Answer, despiteseveral res#hedulin% of hearin%s at his instan#e.0 he trial #ourt thus submitted the #ase for de#ision, andeventually ruled that respondent was libeled and defamed. 1or the sufferin%s, so#ial ridi#ule, defamation anddishonor #aused by petitioners letters, respondent was awarded dama%es, as follows ;P?,,. asmoral dama%esE P-,. as e>emplary dama%esE P-,. for liti%ation e>pensesE and attorneysfees in the amount of 2?F of whatever amounts a#tually re#eived by plaintiff for this jud%ment.< ?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Petitioner moved for re#onsideration andGor new trial,! but the same was denied by the trial #ourt.7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

T#E CA R$LING

/n intermediate appellate review, the CA ruled that petitioner was not denied due pro#ess. 6t noted that

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


petitioner was %iven full opportunity to present his eviden#e, but he vehemently disre%arded thepro#eedin%s by merely absentin% himself from trials without valid e>#uses. $

#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

he appellate #ourt also ruled that the letters were not privile%ed #ommuni#ations, sin#e petitioner was nota#tin% as a member of the Con%ress when he sent them. 6n fa#t, his letter stated that he e>tends his ;apolo%y for brin%in% this personal matter in the open.< 3e was, as maintained by the respondent, sendin%open libelous and unsealed letters, duly published and #ir#ulated in "i%os, "avao del 4ur, and ueBon

City.

Conse@uently, the CA upheld the dama%es awarded by the trial #ourt, the amounts bein% #onsistentwith the so#ial and finan#ial standin% of the parties involved.-#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

We now rule on the final review of the #ase. #ralawred

T#E ISS$ES

1rom the fore%oin%, we redu#e the issues to the followin%

&-' Whether or not petitioner was deprived due pro#essE

&2' Whether or not the letters are libelous in natureE

&' Whether or not the letters fall within the purview of privile%ed #ommuni#ationE and

&0' Whether or not respondent is entitled to moral and e>emplary dama%es, attorneys fees and liti%atione>penses.

O$R R$LING

We deny the petition.

Petitioner an#hors his appeal on the %round that his letters are #overed by privile%ed #ommuni#ations. 3einsists that he has the le%al, moral, or so#ial duty to ma5e the #ommuni#ation, or at least, had an interest toprote#t, bein% then a Con%ressman duty(bound to insulate his offi#e and his #onstituents from the dubiousand mistrustful pursuits of his elder brother.-- =oreover, the letters were also not meant to be #ir#ulated orpublished. hey were sent merely to warn the individuals of respondents nefarious a#tivities, and made in%ood faith and without any a#tual mali#e. Respondents testimony that he learned the e>isten#e of the letterfrom others #annot be #ountenan#ed, as no witness #orroborated this. At best, it is only hearsay.-2


/n the denial of his motion for re#onsideration andGor new trial, he maintains that his own #ounsel Atty.8eonardo ". 4uario #ate%ori#ally admitted that he did not 5now of petitioners ailment and thus did not ma5ethe proper manifestations in Court. 3is failure to attend the hearin% was not of his own volition, but be#auseof his do#tors stri#t advi#e sin#e he earlier underwent a @uadruple #oronary artery bypass at the 4t. 8u5es=edi#al Center(3eart 6nstitute in ueBon City on -! July 2-, just a day before the =otion forRe#onsideration andGor +ew rial was filed. While his #ounsel represents him, the latters mista5es shouldnot deprive him of his day in #ourt to present his side.-


As to the dama%es, petitioner avers that sin#e respondent never testified on any sufferin% he sustained orwhy he is entitled to them, the same must not be awarded.

/n the other hand, respondent asserts that petitioners letters do not fall within the purview of privile%ed#ommuni#ation be#ause it was published and read by the se#retariat of the 3ouse of the Representatives,and not e>#lusively #ommuni#ated to persons who have some interest or duty in the matter and who have

the power to furnish the prote#tion sou%ht by the author of the statement. =oreover, he was not a#tin% as amember of #on%ress when he sent the letters. he writin% of a personal matter &whi#h petitioner admitted inthe letters', not relatin% to the fun#tions of a member of Con%ress #annot, by any stret#h of ima%ination, bedeemed to be privile%ed and insulated from suit arisin% therefrom.-0


=ali#e has also been suffi#iently proven be#ause the lan%ua%e of the letters in fa#t shows that the writer hadsome ill(feelin% towards the respondent by usin% the words su#h as ;re5nown bla#5mailer< and ;bitter rival.<here is suffi#ient showin% that petitioner bore a %rud%e a%ainst the respondent and that there was rivalryor ill(feelin% between them.-?


Anent the dama%es, respondent believes that they were ri%htly awarded, ta5in% into #onsideration his

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


testimony in the lower #ourt,-! and the finan#ial and so#ial standin% of the parties herein.-7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

First, %& ru'& ()a( *&(+(+on&r %a no( -&*r+&- o/ )+ r+)( (o -u& *ro&.

4ettled is the rule that a #lient is bound by the mista5es of his #ounsel. he only e>#eption is when thene%li%en#e of the #ounsel is so %ross, re#5less and ine>#usable that the #lient is deprived of his day in #ourt.6n su#h instan#e, the remedy is to reopen the #ase and allow the party who was denied his day in #ourt to

addu#e eviden#e. 3owever, perusin% the #ase at bar, we find no reason to depart from the %eneral rule.-$


Petitioner was %iven several opportunities to present his eviden#e or to #larify his medi#al #onstraints in#ourt, but he did not do so, despite 5nowin% full well that he had a pendin% #ase in #ourt. 1or petitioner tofei%n and repeatedly insist upon a la#5 of awareness of the pro%ress of an important liti%ation is to unmas5 apen#hant for the ludi#rous. Althou%h he ri%htfully e>pe#ted #ounsel to amply prote#t his interest, he #annot just sit ba#5, rela> and await the out#ome of the #ase. 6n 5eepin% with the normal #ourse of events, heshould have ta5en the initiative ;of ma5in% the proper in@uiries from his #ounsel and the trial #ourt as to thestatus of his #ase.< 1or his failure to do so, he has only himself to blame.- he Court #annot allow petitionerthe e>#eption to the %eneral rule just be#ause his #ounsel admitted havin% no 5nowled%e of his medi#al#ondition. o do so will set a dan%erous pre#edent of never(endin% suits, so lon% as lawyers #ould alle%etheir own fault or ne%li%en#e to support the #lients #ase and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by theoperation of law.2


Second, %& /+n- ()a( *&(+(+on&r '&((&r ar& '+3&'ou +n na(ur& an- -o no( /a'' %+()+n ()& *ur+&%

o/ *r++'&&- oun+a(+on.

1or an imputation to be libelous under Arti#le ? of the Revised Penal Code, the followin% re@uisites mustbe present &a' it must be defamatoryE &b' it must be mali#iousE &#' it must be %iven publi#ityE and &d' thevi#tim must be identifiable.2-


Conse@uently, under Arti#le ?0, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be mali#ious, even if true, ifno %ood intention and justifiable motive is shown. As an e>#eption to the rule, the presumption of mali#e isdone away with when the defamatory imputation @ualifies as privile%ed #ommuni#ation.22 6n order to @ualifyas privile%ed #ommuni#ation under Arti#le ?0, +umber -,2 the followin% re@uisites must #on#ur &-' theperson who made the #ommuni#ation had a le%al, moral, or so#ial duty to ma5e the #ommuni#ation, or atleast, had an interest to prote#t, whi#h interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is madeE &2'the #ommuni#ation is addressed to an offi#er or a board, or superior, havin% some interest or duty in thematter, and who has the power to furnish the prote#tion sou%htE and &' the statements in the#ommuni#ation are made in %ood faith and without mali#e.20


Were petitioners letters defamatory in natureH We believe so.

6n determinin% whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be #onstrued in their entirety andshould be ta5en in their plain, natural, and ordinary meanin% as they would naturally be understood by thepersons readin% them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.2? 6n theinstant #ase, the letters ta% respondent as a ;re5nown bla#5 mailer,< a ven%eful family member who filed#ases a%ainst his mother and siblin%s, and with nefarious desi%ns. 9ven an impartial mind readin% thesedes#riptions would be led to entertain doubts on the persons #hara#ter, thereby affe#tin% that personsreputation.

=ali#e #an also be presumed inasmu#h as the letters are not privile%ed in nature. Petitioners #ontention thathe has the le%al, moral or so#ial duty to ma5e the #ommuni#ation #annot be #ountenan#ed be#ause he failedto #ommuni#ate the statements only to the person or persons who have some interest or duty in the matteralle%ed, and who have the power to furnish the prote#tion sou%ht by the author of the statement. A writtenletter #ontainin% libelous matter #annot be #lassified as privile%ed when it is published and #ir#ulated amon%the publi#.2! 9>amination of the letters would reveal that petitioner himself intended for the letters to be#ir#ulated &and they were so' when he said that #hanroblesv

=ay 6 therefore re@uest the assistan#e of your offi#e in #ir#ulatin% the above information to #on#ernedoffi#ials and se#retariat employees of the 3ouse of Representatives.27

his la#5 of sele#tivity on his part is indi#ative of mali#e and is anathema to his #laim of privile%ed#ommuni#ation be#ause su#h publi#ation #reated upon the minds of the readers a #ir#umstan#e whi#h

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


brou%ht dis#redit and shame to respondents reputation.2$#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Lastly , havin% duly proved that all the elements of libel are present in this #ase, %& ru'& ()a( ()&-aa& a%ar-&- 3y ()& (r+a' our( an- a//+r&- 3y ()& a**&''a(& our( u( 3& o-+/+&- an-&u+(a3'y r&-u&-.

6n awardin% dama%es in libel #ases, the #ourt is %iven ample dis#retion to determine the amount, dependin%

upon the fa#ts of the parti#ular #ase.2

Arti#le 22- of the Civil Code e>pressly authoriBes the re#overy ofmoral dama%es in #ases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. 3owever, ;while no proof ofpe#uniary loss is ne#essary in order that moral dama%es may be awarded, > > > it is nevertheless essentialthat the #laimant should satisfa#torily show the e>isten#e of the fa#tual basis of dama%es and its #ausal#onne#tion to defendants a#ts.< Considerin% that respondent suffi#iently justified his #laim for dama%es&i.e. he testified that he was ;embarrassed by the said letters Iand ashamed to show his fa#e in Isi#%overnment offi#es< -', we find him entitled to moral and e>emplary dama%es.

3owever, we e@uitably redu#e the amounts2 awarded be#ause even thou%h the letters were libellous,respondent has not suffered su#h %rave or substantial dama%e to his reputation to warrant re#eivin%P?,, as moral dama%es and P-,. as e>emplary dama%es. 6n fa#t, he was able to su##essfullyse#ure an ele#ted position in re#ent years. A##ordin%ly, we redu#e the award of moral dama%es fromP?,, to P-, and e>emplary dama%es from P-, to P2,.

he award of attorneys fees is not proper be#ause respondent failed to justify satisfa#torily his #laim, and

both the trial and appellate #ourts failed to e>pli#itly state in their respe#tive de#isions the rationale for theaward. 6t is an a##epted do#trine that the award thereof as an item of dama%es is the e>#eption ratherthan the rule, and #ounsels fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. he power of the#ourt to award attorneys fees under Arti#le 22$ of the Civil Code demands fa#tual, le%al and e@uitable justifi#ation, without whi#h the award is a #on#lusion without a premise, its basis bein% improperly left tospe#ulation and #onje#ture. 6n all events, the #ourt must e>pli#itly state in the te>t of the de#ision, and notonly in the de#retal portion thereof, the le%al reason for the award of attorneys fees.0 he same is true forthe award of liti%ation e>penses be#ause respondent failed to satisfa#torily justify his #laim. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, we DEN the instant petition. he 27 January 2! "e#ision and 2$ Au%ust 27 Resolutionof the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C* +o. 7$$ are hereby ODIFIED, in that &-' the award of moraldama%es is redu#ed from P?,, to P-,E &2' the award of e>emplary dama%es is redu#ed fromP-, to P2,E and &' liti%ation e>penses and attorneys fees are deleted.

SO ORDERED. #ralawlawlibrary

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 21084, January 14, 2015

NORIEL R. ONTIERRO, Petitioner , v. RIC:ERS ARINE AGENC ;#ILS., INC., Respondent .

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


D E C I S I O N

SERENO,C.J."

Defore this Court is a Petition for Review on certiorari - see5in% to nullify the "e#ision dated $ Au%ust2-2and the Resolution dated ! January 2-0 issued by the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. 4P +o.-2!!-$.

Fa(

/n 2! 1ebruary 2-, respondent Ri#5mers =arine A%en#y Phils., 6n#. &Ri#5mers', on behalf of its forei%nprin#ipal, )lobal =ana%ement 8imited, hired petitioner +oriel =ontierro as /rdinary 4eaman with a basi#monthly salary of K4"02. 3e was assi%ned to wor5 on board the vessel M/V CSAV Maresias.0

4ometime in =ay 2-, while on board the vessel and %oin% down from a #rane ladder, =ontierro lost hisbalan#e and twisted his le%s, thus injurin% his ri%ht 5nee.? hereafter, on - =ay 2-, he was e>amined in8ivorno, 4pain by "r. Roberto 4antini, who re#ommended sur%i#al treatment at home and found him unfit forduty.! hus, on 2 June 2-, =ontierro was repatriated to the Philippines for further medi#al treatment.7

/n 0 June 2-, two days after his repatriation, =ontierro reported to "r. +atalio ). Ale%re 66, the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian. 3e underwent a ma%neti# resonan#e ima%in% &=R6' s#an of his ri%ht 5nee. he =R6

showed he had ;menis#al tear, posterior horn of the medi#al menis#us, and minimal joint fluid.< Kpon there#ommendation of "r. Ale%re, =ontiero underwent arthros#opi# partial medi#al menis#e#tomy of his ri%ht5nee on 2 July 2- at 4t. 8u5es =edi#al Center.$

/n 2 Au%ust 2-, =ontierro had his se#ond #he#5(up with "r. Ale%re, who noted that the formers sur%i#alwounds had healed, but that there was still pain and limitation of motion on his ri%ht 5nee on %aits ands@uats. he do#tor advised him to under%o rehabilitation medi#ine and #ontinue physi#al therapy.

/n 4eptember 2-, ()& 91( -ay o/ on(+&rro (r&a(&n(, "r. Ale%re issued an interim disability%rade of - for ;stret#hin% le% of li%aments of a 5nee resultin% in instability of the joint.< 3e advised=ontierro to #ontinue with the latters physi#al therapy and oral medi#ations.-

=ontierro further underwent sessions of treatment and evaluation between -7 4eptember 2- and 2$"e#ember 2-.--

/n January 2--, ()& 21() -ay o/ on(+&rro (r&a(&n(, "r. Ale%re issued a final assessment asfollows#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4ubje#tive Complaints Cannot fle> the 5nee to -F +o swellin% noted 8imited ran%e of motion of ri%ht 5nee

Assessment =edial =enis#al ear, Lnee Ri%ht 4GP Arthros#opi# =enis#e#tomy

Plan "isability )rade of - is %iven based on se#tion 2 of the P/9A #ontra#t. 8ower 9>tremities M2,

stret#hin% le% of the li%aments of a 5nee resultin% in instability of the joint. > > >-2

=eanwhile, on "e#ember 2-, one month before Dr. Alegre’s issuance of the final disabilit grading,=ontierro filed with the labor arbiter a #omplaint for re#overy of permanent disability #ompensation in theamount of K4"$,, K4"2,- as si#5ness allowan#e, plus moral and e>emplary dama%es and attorneysfees.- o support his #laim for total permanent disability benefits, =ontierro relied on a =edi#al Certifi#atedated "e#ember 2- issued by his physi#ian of #hoi#e, "r. =anuel C. Ja#into, re#ommendin% totalpermanent disability %radin%, and e>plainin% the formers medi#al #ondition as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Patients #ondition started at wor5 when he a##identally fell from a ladder #ausin% his &R' 5nee to be twisted.Patients symptoms of pain and limited fle>ion of &R' 5nee persisted, thus he was assessed to be physi#allyunfit to %o ba#5 to wor5.-0

LA AND NLRC R$LINGS

6n a "e#ision dated 2 June 2--, the 8A held that =ontierro was entitled to permanent (o(a' disabilitybenefits under the Philippine /verseas 9mployment A%en#y 4tandard 9mployment Contra#t &P/9A(49C'.

he 8A relied on the -2(day rule introdu#ed by the 2? #ase Crstal Shipping! "nc. v. #atividad .-? he rulee@uates the inability of the seafarer to perform wor5 for more than -2 days to permanent total disability,whi#h entitles a seafarer to full disability benefits.-! he 8A also awarded one(month si#5ness allowan#e andattorneys fees.

/n 2! /#tober 2--, Ri#5mers elevated the #ase to the +ational 8abor Relations Commission &+8RC',-7whi#haffirmed the "e#ision of the 8A on ? June 2-2. Ri#5mers filed a =otion for Re#onsideration, whi#h the +8RCdenied.-$ his denial prompted Ri#5mers to file a Rule !? Petition with the CA.-

CA Ru'+n

/n $ Au%ust 2-, the CA rendered a "e#ision partially %rantin% the Petition. 6t affirmed the +8RC rulin%insofar as the latter awarded =ontierro one(month si#5ness allowan#e.2 he CA held, however, that he wasentitled merely to ;)rade -< permanent partial disability benefits.2- 6t also dropped the award of attorneys

fees %ranted to him earlier.

22

6n its "e#ision down%radin% the #laim of =ontierro to ;)rade -< permanent partial disability benefits only,the CA ruled that his disability #ould not be deemed total and permanent under the 20(day rule establishedby the 2$ #ase Vergara v. $ammonia Maritime Services! "nc.2Vergara e>tends the period to 20 dayswhen, within the first -2(day period &re#5oned from the first day of treatment', a final assessment #annotbe made be#ause the seafarer re@uires further medi#al attention, provided a de#laration has been made tothis effe#t.20

he CA pointed out that only 2-? days had lapsed from the time of =ontierros medi#al repatriation on 2June 2- until January 2--, when the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian issued a ;)rade -< final disabilityassessment. 6t justified the e>tension of the period to 20 days on the %round that "r. Ale%re issuedan interim disability %rade of ;-< on 4eptember 2-, the -st day of =ontierros treatment, whi#h waswithin the initial -2(day period.

1urther, the CA upheld the jurisprudential rule that, in #ase of #onfli#t, it is the re#ommendation issued bythe #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian that prevails over the re#ommendation of the #laimants physi#ian of#hoi#e.

/n the deletion of the award of attorneys fees, the CA reasoned that there was no suffi#ient showin% of badfaith in Ri#5mers persisten#e in the #ase other than an erroneous #onvi#tion of the ri%hteousness of its#ause based on the re#ommendation of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian.

R$LE 45 ;ETITION

3en#e, =ontierro filed a Rule 0? Petition with this Court. 3e #ontends in the main that he is entitled to fulldisability benefits. o support this thesis, he raises two ar%uments.

%irst , =ontierro insists that the -2(day rule laid down in the 2? #ase Crstal Shipping, and not the 20(day rule introdu#ed by the 2$ #ase Vergara, applies to this #ase. =ontierro #ites the more re#ent

#ases&allem Maritime Services! "nc.! v. 'ana(an,2?Maers) %ilipinas Cre(ing! "nc. v.Mesina,2! and Valen*ona v. %air Shipping Corp.,27 all of whi#h applied the Crystal 4hippin% do#trine despitethe fa#t that they were promul%ated a/(&r Vergara.

Second , he #laims that the medi#al assessment of his personal physi#ian, to the effe#t that the formersdisability is permanent and total, should be a##orded more wei%ht than that issued by the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian.2$

=ontierro also raises in his petition the issue of attorneys fees, whi#h he believes he is entitled to as he was#ompelled to liti%ate.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


ISS$ES

he issues to be resolved are the followin% &-' whether it is the -2(day rule or the 20(day rule thatshould apply to this #aseE &2' whether it is the opinion of the #ompany do#tor or of the personal do#tor ofthe seafarer that should prevailE and &' whether =ontierro is entitled to attorneys fees.

O$R R$LING

120 day rule vs. 240 day rule

he Court has already delineated the effe#tivity of the Crstal Shipping and Vergara rulin%s in the 2-#ase +estrel Shipping Co. "nc. v. Munar ,2 by e>plainin% as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

+onetheless, Vergara was promul%ated on O(o3&r 8, 200<, or more than two &2' years from the time=unar filed his #omplaint and observan#e of the prin#iple of prospe#tivity di#tates that Vergara should notoperate to strip =unar of his #ause of a#tion for total and permanent disability that had already a##rued as aresult of his #ontinued inability to perform his #ustomary wor5 and the failure of the #ompany(desi%natedphysi#ian to issue a final assessment.

hus, based on +estrel , +/ ()& ar+(+& o*&na(+on o*'a+n( %a /+'&- *r+or (o 8 O(o3&r 200<,()& 120=-ay ru'& a**'+&> +/, on ()& o()&r )an-, ()& o*'a+n( %a /+'&- /ro 8 O(o3&r 200<on%ar-, ()& 240=-ay ru'& a**'+&.

6n this #ase, =ontierro filed his Complaint on "e#ember 2-, whi#h was after the promul%ationof Vergara on ! /#tober 2$. 3en#e, it is the 20(day rule that applies to this #ase, and not the -2(dayrule.

=ontierro #annot rely on the #ases that he #ited, a survey of whi#h reveals that all of them involvedComplaints filed 3&/or& ! /#tober 2$. &allem Maritime Services involved a Complaint for disabilitybenefits filed on 2! +ovember -$. 6n Maers) %ilipinas Cre(ing,- while the "e#ision did not mention thedate the Complaint was filed, the 8As "e#ision was rendered on -0 April 2$. 8astly, in Valen*ona,2 theComplaint was filed sometime before - January 2. 6t thus #omes as no surprise that the #ases=ontierro ban5s on followed the -2(day rule.

Applyin% the 20(day rule to this #ase, we arrive at the same #on#lusion rea#hed by the CA. =ontierrostreatment by the #ompany do#tor be%an on 0 June 2-. 6t ended on January 2--, when the #ompanydo#tor issued a ;)rade -< final disability assessment. Countin% the days from 0 June 2- to January2--, the assessment by the #ompany do#tor was made on the 2-th day, well within the 20(day period.

he e>tension of the period to 20 days is justified by the fa#t that "r. Ale%re issued an interim disability%rade of ;-< on 4eptember 2-, the -st day of =ontierros treatment, whi#h was within the -2(dayperiod.

hus, the CA #orre#tly ruled that =ontierros #ondition #annot be deemed a permanent total disability.

Company doctor vs. personal doctor

Vergara also definitively settled the @uestion how a #onfli#t between two disability assessments N theassessment of the compan,designated phsician and that of the seafarer’s chosen phsician N should beresolved. 6n that #ase, the Court held that there is a pro#edure to be followed re%ardin% the determinationof liability for wor5(related death, illness or injury in the #ase of overseas 1ilipino seafarers. he pro#edure isspelled out in the 2 P/9A(49C, the e>e#ution of whi#h is a sine -ua non re@uirement in deployments foroverseas wor5.0

he pro#edure is as follows when a seafarer sustains a wor5(related illness or injury while on board thevessel, his fitness for wor5 shall be determined by the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian. he physi#ian has -2days, or 20 days, if validly e>tended, to ma5e the assessment. 6f the physi#ian appointed by the seafarerdisa%rees with the assessment of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian, the opinion of a third do#tor may bea%reed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, whose de#ision shall be final and bindin% on them.?

Vergara ruled that the pro#edure in the 2 P/9A(49C must be stri#tly followedE otherwise, if not availedof or followed stri#tly by the seafarer, the assessment of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian stands.!

6n this #ase, =ontierro and Ri#5mers are #overed by the provisions of the same 2 P/9A(49C. 6t is the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


law between them. 3en#e, they are bound by the me#hanism for determinin% liability for a disability benefits#laim. =ontierro, however, *r&&*(&- the pro#edure when he filed on "e#ember 2- a Complaint forpermanent disability benefits based on his #hosen physi#ians assessment, whi#h was made onemonth 3&/or& the #ompany(desi%nated do#tor issued the final disability %radin% on January 2--,()&21() -ay o/ on(+&rro (r&a(&n(.

3en#e, for failure of =ontierro to observe the pro#edure provided by the P/9A(49C, the assessment of the

#ompany do#tor should prevail.

=oreover, Ri#5mers e>erted r&a' &//or( to provide =ontierro with medi#al assistan#e. he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian monitored =ontierros #ase from be%innin% to end. Kpon the formers re#ommendation,=ontierro even underwent arthros#opi# partial medi#al menis#e#tomy of his ri%ht 5nee. he #ompany(do#torli5ewise %ave him physi#al therapy. 8astly, he issued his #ertifi#ation on the basis of the medi#al re#ordsavailable and the results obtained.

1urther, a ju>taposition of the two #onfli#tin% assessments reveals that the #ertifi#ation of =ontierros do#torof #hoi#e pales in #omparison with that of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian. 1ittin% is the followin%dis#ussion of the CA #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

o #ontest the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ianOs disability assessment of ;)rade -<, =ontierro relied on thetotal permanent disability assessment of his physi#ian of #hoi#e. 6n #ontrast to his physi#ianOsassessment &3o-+&- +n a on&=*a& &-+a' &r(+/+a(& -a(&- D&&3&r , 2010 %)+) -+- no(&&n +n-+a(& any (&( or *ro&-ur& ()a( ay )a& 3&&n *&r/or&- or on-u(&- %)&n )&

&?a+n&- an- -&(&r+n&- on(+&rro@ -+a3+'+(y, however, the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ianOs findin%is entitled to %reater wei%ht and respe#t be#ause it was arrived at after =ontierro was re%ularly e>amined in#oordination with other do#tors, pres#ribed with medi#ations, and %iven physi#al therapy and rehabilitationsessions from June 0, 2- until January , 2--. 6n the fa#e of these well(defined fa#ts, We find it onlyreasonable, if not lo%i#al, to %ive #reden#e to the #ompany physi#ianOs findin% rather than that of =ontierroOsphysi#ian of #hoi#e.

3avin% e>tensive personal 5nowled%e of the seafarerOs a#tual medi#al #ondition, and havin% #losely,meti#ulously and re%ularly monitored and treated his injury for an e>tended period, the #ompany(desi%natedphysi#ian is #ertainly in a better position to %ive a more a##urate evaluation of =ontierroOs health #ondition.he disability %radin% %iven by him should therefore be %iven more wei%ht than the assessment of=ontierroOs physi#ian of #hoi#e.7

Attorneys !ees

/n the premise that there was no showin% of bad faith on the part of the employer, for#in% =ontierro toliti%ate, the CA dropped the award of attorneys fees. We arrive at the same #on#lusion by usin% anotherroute.

6ndeed, the %eneral rule is that attorneyOs fees may not be awarded where there is no suffi#ient showin% ofbad faith in a partyOs persisten#e in a #ase other than an erroneous #onvi#tion of the ri%hteousness of ones#ause.$ he rule, however, ta5es a turn when it #omes to labor #ases.

he established rule in labor law is that the withholdin% of wa%es need not be #oupled with mali#e or badfaith to warrant the %rant of attorneys fees under Arti#le --- of the 8abor Code. All that is re@uired is thatlawful wa%es be not paid without justifi#ation, thus #ompellin% the employee to liti%ate.0

he CA thus relied on a wron% #onsideration in resolvin% the issue of attorneys fees. De that as it may,=ontierro is not entitled to attorneys fees, even if we apply the #orre#t rule to this #ase.

=ontierro, as earlier mentioned, jumped the %un when he filed his #omplaint one month 3&/or& the#ompany(desi%nated do#tor issued the final disability %radin%. 3en#e, there was no unlawful withholdin% ofbenefits to spea5 of. Pre#isely be#ause =ontierro was still under treatment and awaitin% the final assessmentof the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian, the formers a#t was premature.

6#EREFORE, premises #onsidered, the Petition is DENIED. he CA "e#ision dated $ Au%ust 2- andResolution dated ! January 2-0 are AFFIRED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015

RICARDO C. #ONRADO, Petitioner , v. GA NET6OR: FILS, INC., Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

CAR;IO, J."

T)& Ca&

We review- the "e#ision2 of the Court of Appeals &CA' orderin% petitioner Ri#ardo C. 3onrado &petitioner' topay a sum of money to respondent )=A +etwor5 1ilms, 6n#. for brea#h of #ontra#t and brea#h of trust. #ralawred

T)& Fa(

/n -- "e#ember -$, respondent )=A +etwor5 1ilms, 6n#. &)=A 1ilms' entered into a ;* Ri%htsA%reement< &A%reement' with petitioner under whi#h petitioner, as li#ensor of ! films, %ranted to )=A1ilms, for a fee of P!.7? million, the e>#lusive ri%ht to tele#ast the ! films for a period of three years.

Knder Para%raph of the A%reement, the parties a%reed that ;all beta#am #opies of the Ifilms should passthrou%h broad#ast @uality test #ondu#ted by )=A(7,< the * station operated by )=A +etwor5, 6n#. &)=A+etwor5', an affiliate of )=A 1ilms. he parties also a%reed to submit the films for review by the =ovie andelevision Review and Classifi#ation Doard &=RCD' and stipulated on the remedies in the event that =RCDbans the tele#astin% of any of the films &Para%raph 0' ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

he PR/)RA==9 6894 listed above shall be subje#t to approval by the =ovie and elevision Review andClassifi#ation Doard &=RCD' and, in the event of disapproval! "C#S0R 1Petitioner2 (ill either replace thecensored PR03RAMM '"'S (ith another title (hich is mutuall acceptable to both parties or! failure todo such! a proportionate reduction from the total price shall either be deducted or refunded whi#hever is the#ase by the 86C9+4/R /R 86C9+499 I)=A 1ilms. &9mphasis supplied'

wo of the films #overed by the A%reement were vangeline +atorse and 4ubot for whi#h )=A 1ilms paidP-.? million ea#h.

6n 2, )=A 1ilms sued petitioner in the Re%ional rial Court of ueBon City &trial #ourt' to #olle#t P-.!

million representin% the fee it paid for vangeline +atorse &P-.? million' and a portion of the fee it paidfor4ubot &P?,0'. )=A 1ilms alle%ed that it reje#ted vangeline +atorse be#ause ;its runnin% time wastoo short for tele#ast< ? and petitioner only remitted P, to the owner of 4ubot &Juanita Alano IAlano',5eepin% for himself the balan#e of P?,. )=A 1ilms prayed for the return of su#h amount on the theorythat an implied trust arose between the parties as petitioner fraudulently 5ept it for himself.!


Petitioner denied liability, #ounter(alle%in% that after )=A 1ilms reje#ted vangeline +atorse, he repla#ed itwith another film, &inasa) na Pangarap, whi#h )=A 1ilms a##epted. As proof of su#h a##eptan#e, petitionerinvo5ed a #ertifi#ation of )=A +etwor5, dated =ar#h -, attestin% that su#h film ;is of %ood broad#ast@uality< 7 &1ilm Certifi#ation'. Re%ardin% the fee )=A 1ilms paid for 4ubot , petitioner alle%ed that he hadsettled his obli%ation to Alano. Alternatively, petitioner alle%ed that )=A 1ilms, bein% a stran%er to the#ontra#ts he entered into with the owners of the films in @uestion, has no personality to @uestion his#omplian#e with the terms of su#h #ontra#ts. Petitioner #ounter#laimed for attorneys fees.#ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Tr+a' Cour(

he trial #ourt dismissed )=A 1ilms #omplaint and, findin% merit in petitioners #ounter#laim, ordered )=A1ilms to pay attorneys fees &P-,'. he trial #ourt %ave #reden#e to petitioners defense that herepla#ed vangeline +atorse with &inasa) na Pangarap. /n the disposal of the fee )=A 1ilms paid for4ubot ,the trial #ourt reje#ted )=A 1ilms theory of implied trust, findin% insuffi#ient )=A 1ilms proof thatpetitioner po#5eted any portion of the fee in @uestion.

)=A 1ilms appealed to the CA. #ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Cour( o/ A**&a'

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


he CA %ranted )=A 1ilms appeal, set aside the trial #ourts rulin%, and ordered respondent to pay )=A1ilms P2 million$ as prin#ipal obli%ation with -2F annual interest, e>emplary dama%es &P-,',attorneys fees &P2,', liti%ation e>penses &P-,' and the #osts. Drushin% aside the trial #ourtsappre#iation of the eviden#e, the CA found that &-' )=A 1ilms was authoriBed under Para%raph 0 of theA%reement to reje#t vangeline +atorse, and &2' )=A 1ilms never a##epted &inasa) na Pangarap asrepla#ement be#ause it was a ;bold< film.


/n petitioners liability for the fee )=A 1ilms paid for 4ubot , the CA sustained )=A 1ilms #ontention thatpetitioner was under obli%ation to turn over to the film owners the full amount )=A 1ilms paid for the filmsas ;nowhere in the * Ri%hts A%reement does it provide that the li#ensor is entitled to any #ommission > > >Ihen#e > > > Ipetitioner 3onrado #annot #laim any portion of the pur#hase pri#e paid for by > > > )=A1ilms.< - he CA #on#luded that petitioners retention of a portion of the fee for 4ubot %ave rise to an impliedtrust between him and )=A 1ilms, obli%atin% petitioner, as trustee, to return to )=A 1ilms, as benefi#iary,the amount #laimed by the latter.

3en#e, this petition. Petitioner prays for the reinstatement of the trial #ourts rulin% while )=A 1ilms atta#5sthe petition for la#5 of merit. #ralawred

T)& Iu&

he @uestion is whether the CA erred in findin% petitioner liable for brea#h of the A%reement and brea#h of

trust.#ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Cour(

We %rant the petition. We find )=A 1ilms #omplaint without merit and a##ordin%ly reinstate the trial #ourtsrulin% dismissin% it with the modifi#ation that the award of attorneys fees is deleted.

"etitioner Committed #o $reach o! Contract or %rust

&%'C$ (isapproval the Stipulated $asis !or Film 'eplacement

he parties do not @uarrel on the meanin% of Para%raph 0 of the A%reement whi#h statesChanRobles*irtualawlibrary111

he PR/)RA==9 6894 listed Iin the A%reement > > > shall be subje#t to approval by the =ovie andelevision Review and Classifi#ation Doard &=RCD' and, in the event of disapproval! "C#S0R 1Petitioner2(ill either replace the censored PR03RAMM '"'S (ith another title (hich is mutuall acceptable to both parties or! failure to do such! a proportionate reduction from the total price shall either be deducted orrefunded whi#hever is the #ase by the 86C9+4/R /R 86C9+499 I)=A 1ilms.-- &9mphasis supplied'

Knder this stipulation, what tri%%ers the reje#tion and repla#ement of any film listed in the A%reement is the ;disapproval< of its tele#astin% by =RCD.

+or is there any dispute that )=A 1ilms reje#ted vangeline +atorse not be#ause it was disapproved by=RCD but be#ause the films total runnin% time was too short for tele#ast &undertime'. 6nstead of reje#tin%)=A 1ilms demand for fallin% outside of the terms of Para%raph 0, petitioner voluntarily a##eded to it andrepla#ed su#h film with &inasa) na Pangarap. What is disputed is whether )=A 1ilms a##epted therepla#ement film offered by petitioner.

Petitioner maintains that the 1ilm Certifi#ation issued by )=A +etwor5 attestin% to the ;%ood broad#ast@uality< of &inasa) na Pangarap amounted to )=A 1ilms a##eptan#e of su#h film. /n the other hand, )=A1ilms insists that su#h #learan#e pertained only to the te#hni#al @uality of the film but not to its #ontent

whi#h it reje#ted be#ause it found the film as ;bomba< &bold'.-2 he CA, wor5in% under the assumption thatthe %round )=A 1ilms invo5ed to reje#t &inasa) na Pangarap was san#tioned under the A%reement, foundmerit in the latters #laim. We hold that re%ardless of the import of the 1ilm Certifi#ation, )=A 1ilmsreje#tion of &inasa) na Pangarap finds no basis in the A%reement.

6n terms devoid of any ambi%uity, Para%raph 0 of the A%reement re@uires the intervention of =RCD, thestate #ensor, before )=A 1ilms #an reje#t a film and re@uire its repla#ement. 4pe#ifi#ally, Para%raph 0re@uires that =RCD, after reviewin% a film listed in the A%reement, disapprove or :(rate it for tele#astin%.)=A 1ilms does not alle%e, and we find no proof on re#ord indi#atin%, that =RCD reviewed &inasa) naPangarap and :(rated it. 6ndeed, )=A 1ilms own witness, Jose =arie Aba#an &Aba#an', then *i#e(President

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


for Pro%ram =ana%ement of )=A +etwor5, testified durin% trial that it (as 3MA #et(or) whi#hreje#ted &inasa) na Pangarap be#ause the latter #onsidered the film ;bomba.< - 6n doin% so, )=A +etwor5went beyond its assi%ned role under the A%reement of s#reenin% films to test their broad#ast @uality andassumed the fun#tion of =RCD to evaluate the films for the propriety of their #ontent. his runs #ounter tothe #lear terms of Para%raphs and 0 of the A%reement.

(isposal o! the Fees "aid to "etitioner )utside o! the %erms o! the A*reement

)=A 1ilms also see5s refund for the balan#e of the fees it paid to petitioner for 4ubot whi#h petitioneralle%edly failed to turn(over to the films owner, Alano.-0 6mpli#it in )=A 1ilms #laim is the theory that theA%reement obli%es petitioner to %ive to the film owners the entire amount he re#eived from )=A 1ilms andthat his failure to do so %ave rise to an implied trust, obli%in% petitioner to hold whatever amount he 5ept intrust for )=A 1ilms. he CA sustained )=A 1ilms interpretation, notin% that the A%reement ;does notprovide that the li#ensor is entitled to any #ommission.< -?


his is error.

he A%reement, as its full title denotes &;* Ri%hts A%reement<', is a li#ensin% #ontra#t, the essen#e ofwhi#h is the transfer by the li#ensor &petitioner' to the li#ensee &)=A 1ilms', for a fee, of the e>#lusive ri%htto tele#ast the films listed in the A%reement. 4tipulations for payment of ;#ommission< to the li#ensor isin#on%ruous to the nature of su#h #ontra#ts unless the li#ensor merely a#ted as a%ent of the film owners.+owhere in the A%reement, however, did the parties stipulate that petitioner si%ned the #ontra#t in su#h

#apa#ity. /n the #ontrary, the A%reement repeatedly refers to petitioner as ;li#ensor< and )=A 1ilms as ;li#ensee.< +or did the parties stipulate that the fees paid by )=A 1ilms for the films listed in the A%reementwill be turned over by petitioner to the film owners. 6nstead, the A%reement merely provided that the totalfees will be paid in three installments &Para%raph '.-!


We entertain no doubt that petitioner for%ed separate #ontra#tual arran%ements with the owners of the filmslisted in the A%reement, spellin% out the terms of payment to the latter. Whether or not petitioner #ompliedwith these terms, however, is a matter to whi#h )=A 1ilms holds absolutely no interest. Dein% a stran%er tosu#h arran%ements, )=A 1ilms is no more entitled to #omplain of any brea#h by petitioner of his #ontra#tswith the film owners than the film owners are for any brea#h by )=A 1ilms of its A%reement with petitioner.

We find it unne#essary to pass upon the @uestion whether an implied trust arose between the parties, asheld by the CA. 4u#h #on#lusion was %rounded on the erroneous assumption that )=A 1ilms holds aninterest in the disposition of the li#ensin% fees it paid to petitioner.#ralawred

A+ard o! Attorneys Fees to "etitioner mproper

he trial #ourt awarded attorneys fees to petitioner as it ;deemed it just and reasonable< -7 to do so, usin%the amount provided by petitioner on the witness stand &P-,'. Kndoubtedly, attorneys fees may beawarded if the trial #ourt ;deems it just and e@uitable.< -$ 4u#h %round, however, must be fully elaborated inthe body of the rulin%.- 6ts mere invo#ation, without more, ne%ates the nature of attorneys fees as a formof a#tual dama%es.

6#EREFORE, we GRANT the petition. he "e#ision, dated April 2-2 and Resolution, dated -+ovember 2-2, of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. he "e#ision, dated ? "e#ember 2$, of theRe%ional rial Court of ueBon City &Dran#h 22' is REINSTATED with the ODIFICATION that the awardof attorneys fees is DELETED.


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 20<4, January 14, 2015

RE;$LIC OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Petitioner , v. S;S. JOSE CAST$ERA AND ;ERLACAST$ERA,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CAR;IO, J."

T)& Ca&

his is a petitionfor review on #ertiorari under Rule 0? of the Rules of Court. he petition #hallen%es the 2!=ar#h 2-2 "e#ision2 and -0 Au%ust 2-2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C* +o. $?-?,affirmin% the - January 2? "e#ision0 of the Re%ional rial Court &RC', Dran#h 7, 6ba, ambales, in 8andRe%istration Case +o. RC(+(2(6 and denyin% the motion for re#onsideration, respe#tively.

T)& Fa(

Andres *aliente owned a ,-?(s@uare meter land in Daran%ay 4iminublan, 4an +ar#iso, ambales. 6n -7$,he sold the property to respondents Jose and Perla Castuera &4pouses Castuera'. /n 2- =ay 2, the4pouses Castuera filed with the RC an appli#ation? for ori%inal re%istration of title over the property.

he 4pouses Castuera presented three witnesses to support their appli#ation. he three witnesses were &-'former baran%ay #aptain and #oun#ilman Alfredo "adural, &2' 4enior Poli#e /ffi#er 2 eodori#o Cudal, and&' Perla Castuera. All witnesses testified that the 4pouses Castuera owned the property.

he 4pouses Castuera also presented do#umentary eviden#e to support their appli#ation. he do#umentsin#luded ta> re#eipts and an advan#e plan! with a notation, ;Che#5ed and verified a%ainst the #adastralre#ords on file in this offi#e and is for re%istration purposes. his survey is within the Alienable and"isposable land proj. +o. (3 #ertified by "ire#tor of 1orestry on June 2, -27 per 8C =ap +o. !! 4heet-.<

Petitioner Republi# of the Philippines &petitioner', throu%h the /ffi#e of the 4oli#itor )eneral, filed an

opposition to the appli#ation for ori%inal re%istration.

T)& RTC Ru'+n

6n its - January 2? "e#ision, the RC %ranted the appli#ation for ori%inal re%istration of title over theproperty. he RC held#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1rom the eviden#e submitted by the appli#ants, they have shown preponderantly that they are the lawfulowners in fee simple and the a#tual possessors of 8ot !?? of the 4an +ar#iso Cadastre. hey are entitledtherefore to a judi#ial #onfirmation of their imperfe#t title to the said land pursuant to the provisions of thenew Property Re%istration "e#ree &P" -?2'.7

Petitioner appealed the RC "e#ision to the Court of Appeals. he 4pouses Castuera atta#hed to theirappellees brief a #ertifi#ation$ from the Community 9nvironment and +atural Resour#es /ffi#e &C9+R/',statin%#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

364 64 / C9R61Q that the tra#t of land situated at Dr%y. 4iminublan, 4an +ar#iso, ambales #ontainin% an

area of /+9 3/K4A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" 1/RQ 49*9+ &-$07.' 4KAR9 =99R4 as shown anddes#ribed in this s5et#h as verified by Cart. +estor 8. "el%ado for 4ps. Jose Castuera and Perla Castuera wasfound to be within the Alienable or "isposable, Proje#t +o. (3, #ertified by then "ire#tor of 1orestry, manilaIsi# on June 2, -27 per 8C =ap +o. !!, sheet +o. -.

T)& Cour( o/ A**&a' Ru'+n

6n its 2! =ar#h 2-2 "e#ision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RC "e#ision. he Court of Appeals heldthat#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Presidential "e#ree +o. -?2, otherwise 5nown as the Property Re%istration "e#ree, provides for theinstan#es when a person may file for an appli#ation for re%istration of title over a par#el of land #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


;4e#tion -0. Who =ay Apply. N he followin% persons may file in the proper Court of first 6nstan#e anappli#ation for re%istration of title to land, whether personally or throu%h their duly authoriBedrepresentatives

hose who by themselves or throu%h their prede#essors(in(interest have been in open, #ontinuous, e>#lusiveand notorious possession and o##upation of alienable and disposable lands of the publi# domain under abona fide #laim of ownership sin#e June -2, -0?, or earlier.<

A##ordin%ly, pursuant to the afore@uoted provision of law, appli#ants for re%istration of title must prove thefollowin% &-' that the subje#t land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the publi# domainEand &2' that they have been in open, #ontinuous, e>#lusive and notorious possession and o##upation of theland under a bona fide #laim of ownership sin#e -2 June -0? or earlier. 4e#tion -0&-' of the law re@uiresthat the property sou%ht to be re%istered is already alienable and disposable at the time the appli#ation forre%istration is filed.

Applyin% the fore%oin% in the present #ase, We find and so rule that the trial #ourt is #orre#t in %rantin%appellees appli#ation for ori%inal re%istration of the subje#t land. A s#rutiny of the re#ords shows that thereis substantial #omplian#e with the re@uirement that the subje#t land is alienable and disposable land. 6tbears to emphasiBe that the Advan#e Plan has the followin% notations#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

;Che#5ed and verified a%ainst the #adastral re#ords on file in this offi#e and is for re%istration purposes.I<

;his survey is within the alienable and disposable land proj. no. (3 #ertified by "ire#tor of 1orestry on June2, -27 per 8C =ap +o. !!, 4heet -.<

6n Republi# v. 4errano, the 4upreme Court affirmed the findin%s of the trial #ourt and this Court that thepar#el of land subje#t of re%istration was alienable and disposable. 6t held that a "9+R Re%ional e#hni#al"ire#tors #ertifi#ation, whi#h is annotated on the subdivision plan submitted in eviden#e, #onstitutessubstantial #omplian#e with the le%al re@uirement

;While Cayetano failed to submit any #ertifi#ation whi#h would formally attest to the alienable and disposable#hara#ter of the land applied for,the Certifi#ation by "9+R Re%ional e#hni#al "ire#tor Celso *. 8orie%a, Jr., as annotated on the subdivisionplan submitted in eviden#e by Paulita, #onstitutes substantial #omplian#e with the le%al re@uirement. 6t#learly indi#ates that 8ot 20 had been verified as belon%in% to the alienable and disposable area as early asJuly -$, -2?.I<

;he "9+R #ertifi#ation enjoys the presumption of re%ularity absent any eviden#e to the #ontrary. 6t bearsnotin% that no opposition was filed or re%istered by the 8and Re%istration Authority or the "9+R to #ontest

respondents appli#ations on the %round that their respe#tive shares of the lot are inalienable. here bein%no substantive ri%hts whi#h stand to be prejudi#ed, the benefit of the Certifi#ation may thus be e@uitablye>tended in favor of respondents.<

While in the #ase of Republi# v. .A.+. Properties, 6n#., the 4upreme Court overturned the %rant by the lower#ourts of an ori%inal appli#ation for re%istration over a par#el of land in Datan%as and ruled that a C9+R/#ertifi#ation is not enou%h to #ertify that a land is alienable and disposable #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I;1urther, it is not enou%h for the P9+R/ or C9+R/ to #ertify that a land is alienable and disposable. heappli#ant for land re%istration must prove that the "9+R 4e#retary had approved the land #lassifi#ation andreleased the land of the publi# domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subje#t of theappli#ation for re%istration falls within the approved area per verifi#ation throu%h survey by the P9+R/ orC9+R/. 6n addition, the appli#ant for land re%istration must present a #opy of the ori%inal #lassifi#ationapproved by the "9+R 4e#retary and #ertified as a true #opy by the le%al #ustodian of the offi#ial re#ords.hese fa#ts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to doso be#ause the #ertifi#ations presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is

alienable and disposable.< 3owever, in the re#ent #ase of Republi# vs. Carlos R. *e%a, et al., as an e>#eption to the stri#t appli#ation ofthe strin%ent rule imposed in the above pronoun#ement that the absen#e of these twin #ertifi#ations justifiesa denial of an appli#ation for re%istration, the 4upreme Court, in its sound dis#retion, and based solely onthe eviden#e on re#ord, may approve the appli#ation, pro hac vice, on the %round of substantial #omplian#eshowin% that there has been a positive a#t of %overnment to show the nature and #hara#ter of the land andan absen#e of effe#tive opposition from the %overnment. his e>#eption shall only apply to appli#ations forre%istration #urrently pendin% before the trial #ourt prior to this "e#ision and shall be inappli#able to allfuture appli#ations.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6t must be noted that the present #ase was de#ided by the trial #ourt only on January -, 2?, prior to theabove pronoun#ementI. We believe that the same rule shall apply to the present #ase allowin% there%istration of the subje#t property as there is substantial #omplian#e with the re@uirement that the landsubje#t of re%istration is an alienable and disposable land. Desides, appellees had atta#hed to theirappellees brief a Certifi#ation from the "9+R(C9+R /ffi#e issued on "e#ember 2, -, whi#h states thefollowin%#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

;364 64 / C9R61Q that the tra#t of land situated at Dr%y. 4iminublan, 4an +ar#iso, ambales #ontainin%

an area of /+9 3/K4A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" 1/RQ 49*9+ &-,$07' 4KAR9 =99R4 as shown anddes#ribed in this s5et#h as verified by Cart. +estor 8. "el%ado for 4ps. Jose Castuera and Perla Castuera wasfound to be within the Alienable or "isposable, Proje#t +o. (3, #ertified by then "ire#tor of 1orestry, =anilaon June 2, -27 per 8C =ap +o !!, 4heet +o. -.< -

Petitioner filed a motion for re#onsideration. 6n its -0 Au%ust 2-2 Resolution, the Court of Appeals deniedthe motion. 3en#e, the present petition.

T)& Iu&

Petitioner raises as issue that the advan#e plan and the C9+R/ #ertifi#ation are insuffi#ient proofs of thealienable and disposable #hara#ter of the property.

T)& Cour( Ru'+n

he petition is meritorious.

he advan#e plan and the C9+R/ #ertifi#ation are insuffi#ient proofs of the alienable and disposable#hara#ter of the property. he 4pouses Castuera, as appli#ants for re%istration of title, must present a#ertified true #opy of the "epartment of 9nvironment and +atural Resour#es 4e#retarys de#laration or#lassifi#ation of the land as alienable and disposable. 6n Republic of the Philippines v. $eirs of 5uan%abio,--#itin% Republic v. '.A.#. Properties! "nc.,-2 the Court held that #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6n Republic v. '.A.#. Properties! "nc., we ruled that it is not enou%h for the Provin#ial 9nvironment and+atural Resour#es /ffi#e &P9+R/' or C9+R/ to #ertify that a land is alienable and disposable. he appli#antfor land re%istration must prove that the "9+R 4e#retary had approved the land #lassifi#ation and releasedthe land of the publi# domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subje#t of the appli#ation forre%istration falls within the approved area per verifi#ation throu%h survey by the P9+R/ or C9+R/. 6naddition, the appli#ant must present a #opy of the ori%inal #lassifi#ation of the land into alienable anddisposable, as de#lared by the "9+R 4e#retary, or as pro#laimed by the President. 4u#h #opy of the "9+R4e#retarys de#laration or the Presidents pro#lamation must be #ertified as a true #opy by the le%al

#ustodian of su#h offi#ial re#ord. hese fa#ts must be established to prove that the land is alienable anddisposable.-

6#EREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the 2! =ar#h 2-2 "e#ision and -0 Au%ust2-2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C* +o. $?-?. Respondents Jose and Perla Castuerasappli#ation for re%istration is DISISSED.

SO ORDERED.

T#IRD DIVISION

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015

AN$EL R. ;ORT$G$EB, Petitioner , v. ;EO;LE OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAA, JR., J."

Defore this Court is a petition for review on #ertiorari- see5in% the reversal of the "e#ision2 dated Au%ust -2,2- and the Resolution dated +ovember , 2- of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. CR +o. 2!.he CA affirmed in toto the "e#ision0 dated Au%ust 2, 2$ of the Re%ional rial Court &RC' of Pasi% City,Dran#h 7, findin% petitioner =anuel R. Portu%ueB &petitioner' %uilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of4e#tion --, Arti#le 66 of Republi# A#t &R.A.' +o. -!?.?

he #ase stemmed from the 6nformation! dated April 2-, 2, #har%in% petitioner of the #rime of violationof 4e#tion --, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!? for ille%al possession of five #enti%rams &.? %ram' ofmethamphetamine hydro#hloride or shabu, the a##usatory portion of whi#h reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

/n or about April -!, 2, in Pasi% City and within the jurisdi#tion of this 3onorable Court, the saida##used, not bein% lawfully authoriBed to possess any dan%erous dru%, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his #ustody and #ontrol one &-' heat(sealedtransparent plasti# sa#het #ontainin% five #enti%rams &.? %ram' of white #rystalline substan#e, whi#h wasfound positive to the test for methamphetamine hydro#hloride &shabu', a dan%erous dru%, in violation of thesaid law.

Contrary to law.

Kpon arrai%nment, petitioner pleaded not %uilty to the #har%e.7 hereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

"urin% the pre(trial #onferen#e, the prose#ution and the defense stipulated, amon% others, on the duee>e#ution and %enuineness of the Re@uest for 8aboratory 9>amination$ dated April -!, 2 and ChemistryReport +o. "(!$7(9 issued by the 1orensi# Chemist, Poli#e 4enior 6nspe#tor Annalee R. 1orro &PG4r. 6nsp.1orro'. he parties also stipulated on the e>isten#e of the plasti# sa#het in#ludin% its #ontents whi#h hadbeen the subje#t of the said Re@uest e>#ept for its sour#e or ori%in.- After enterin% into the aforementionedstipulations, the testimony of PG4r. 6nsp. 1orro was dispensed with.--

-ersion o! the "rosecution

he prose#ution, throu%h the testimonies of Poli#e /ffi#er - &P/-' Aldrin R. =ariano &P/- =ariano' and P/-Janet 4abo &P/- 4abo', established the followin%

/n April -!, 2, a #onfidential asset went to the Pasi% City Poli#e 4tation, City 3all "eta#hment, to reportthe ille%al dru% a#tivities of a #ertain alias Dobot at Dalmores 4treet, Daran%ay Lapasi%an, Pasi% City. Kponre#eipt of the information, the #hief of said station formed a buy(bust team wherein P/- =ariano wasdesi%nated as the poseur(buyer. After #oordinatin% with the Philippine "ru% 9nfor#ement A%en#y &P"9A' andpreparin% the buy(bust money, the team and its asset pro#eeded to Dalmores 4treet. Arrivin% thereat, theasset pointed to Dobot as the tar%et person. P/- =ariano saw Dobot and petitioner transa#tin% ille%al dru%s.When P/- =ariano and the asset met petitioner and Dobot on the road, the asset as5ed petitioner, ;P’re!meron pa ba6 < At this point, petitioner loo5ed at P/- =ariano and thereafter, attempted to run. 3owever,P/- =ariano was able to ta5e hold of him. hen, the other poli#e operatives arrived. Petitioner was as5ed toopen his hand. Kpon seein% the suspe#ted shabu on his hand, they arrested petitioner, informed him of his#onstitutional ri%hts and boarded him on their servi#e vehi#le. Defore leavin% the area, P/- =ariano pla#edthe mar5in%s ;7$ A ARM 89,:;,8<< on the seiBed shabu. hereafter, the poli#e operatives brou%htpetitioner to the RiBal =edi#al Center for physi#al e>amination before they pro#eeded to the poli#e station forinvesti%ation.-2

/n #ross(e>amination, P/- =ariano testified that at a distan#e of seven to ei%ht meters, he saw Dobothandin% somethin% to petitioner. P/- =ariano said that the intended buy(bust operation failed be#ause ofthe #ommotion petitioner #aused when he tried to run away. P/- =ariano also testified that he %ot hold ofpetitioner be#ause he was nearer to him. 3e #laimed that the other poli#e operatives ran after Dobot butthey failed to arrest him.-

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n addition, prose#ution witness P/- 4abo testified that on the same day of April -!, 2, she delivered theseiBed shabu and the Re@uest for 8aboratory 9>amination-0 to the Philippine +ational Poli#e &P+P' Crime8aboratory for #hemi#al analysis.-? Chemistry Report +o. "(!$7(9-! prepared by PG4r. 6nsp. 1orro revealedthe followin% results #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4P9C6=9+ 4KD=69"

A /ne &-' heat(sealed transparent plasti# sa#het with mar5in%s ;9:3 A AR= 0G-!G< #ontainin% .?

%ram of white #rystalline substan#e.

> > > >

16+"6+)4

ualitative e>amination #ondu#ted on the above(stated spe#imen %ave ;OSITIVE result to the tests for=ethamphetamine 3ydro#hloride, a dan%erous dru%.

> > > >

C/+C8K46/+

4pe#imen A #ontains &()a*)&(a+n& #y-ro)'or+-&, a dan%erous dru%.

-ersion o! the (e!ense

Petitioner testified that at the time of his arrest, he was fi>in% the )atam and was eatin% infront of his housewith his friends Jonjon Reynoso, Jonjin% Reynoso and Junior "a 4ilva. wo persons from the Pasi% Poli#ehead@uarters arrived and spo5e to his sister who used to wor5 at the said head@uarters. When his sister#alled him, he was mista5en to be Dobot and thus, they arrested him. Petitioner denied that he was inpossession of the shabu alle%edly seiBed from him. 3e #laimed that he saw the said shabu for the first timeat the head@uarters. Petitioner also #laimed that at the time he was arrested on April -!, 2, Dobot wasa#tually detained at a jail in Di#utan.-7

/n #ross(e>amination, petitioner admitted that his sister was a former errand %irl at the poli#ehead@uarters. 3e divul%ed that at the time of his arrest, while he was then repairin% a ;)atam,< two malepersons whom petitioner identified as 9fren and "ennis approa#hed his sister. 9fren told petitioner that thetar%et person of the poli#e offi#ers was Dobot. Petitioner #laimed that P/- =ariano and P/- 4abo arrived afew minutes thereafter and he was arrested in the presen#e of his sister, 9fren and "ennis. Petitioner also

#laimed that the tar%et person Dobot is his youn%er brother, Jovito Portu%ueB. 3e admitted that Dobot wasadmitted to a rehabilitation #enter in Di#utan sin#e he used to sell ille%al dru%s. 3e maintained that thepoli#e offi#ers already had with them the sa#het of shabu when they arrested him.-$

"awn Portu%ueB, dau%hter of petitioner, testified that in the afternoon of April -!, 2, two male personsarrived at the house of her aunt and as5ed for her father. 4he testified that petitioner was then sleepin% inthe nearby house of his friend, Junior. 4he then #alled for her father and, upon their return, four persons,one of whom was in poli#e uniform, approa#hed them and arrested petitioner. 4he informed her mother ofwhat happened and the latter pro#eeded to the head@uarters where petitioner was brou%ht.-

8ast to testify for the defense was =aritess Portu%ueB, petitioners sister. 4he testified that her brother wasthen sleepin% in a nearby house when apprehended by the poli#e offi#ers. 4he averred that after her brotherwas arrested, they a%reed not to file a #omplaint a%ainst the said poli#e offi#ers. /n #ross(e>amination, shesaid that she heard her nie#e shoutin%. 4ensin% a #ommotion, she hurried infront of their house and thereshe saw the poli#e offi#ers a##ostin% her brother.2

%he '%Cs 'ulin*

/n Au%ust 2, 2$, the RC rendered a "e#ision2- findin% petitioner %uilty as #har%ed. he RC invo5ed theprin#iple of the presumption of re%ularity in the performan#e of offi#ial duty, %ave #reden#e to the testimonyof P/- =ariano, and reje#ted the self(servin% testimony of petitioner and the obviously manufa#turedtestimonies of his witnesses. he fallo of the RC "e#ision reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6#EREFORE, premises #onsidered, a##used =A+K98 P/RK)K9 is hereby found G$ILTbeyondreasonable doubt of the offense of *iolation of 4e#tion --, Arti#le 66 of Republi# A#t -!? and is herebysenten#ed to T%&'& 12 &ar and On& 1 Day to T%&n(y 20 &ar and to pay a FINE of T)r&&

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


#un-r&- T)ouan- ;&o ;00,000.00.

Pursuant to 4e#tion 2- of Republi# A#t -!?, any authoriBed representative of the Philippine "ru%9nfor#ement A%en#y &P"9A' is hereby ordered to ta5e #har%e and have #ustody over the plasti# sa#het ofshabu, obje#t of this #ase, for proper disposition.

Costs a%ainst the a##used.

SO ORDERED.22

%he CAs 'ulin*

/n Au%ust -2, 2-, the CA affirmed the de#ision of the RC. he CA held that petitioner was deemed tohave waived his ri%ht to @uestion the irre%ularity of his arrest sin#e he failed to move to @uash the6nformation on this %round and instead, ele#ted to pro#eed with the trial. he CA also held that petitionerwas #au%ht in flagrante delicto when he was arrested by the poli#e offi#ers as P/- =ariano saw him buyin%ille%al dru%s from Dobot. he CA a%reed with the RC that the poli#e offi#ers were presumed to havere%ularly performed their offi#ial duties. he CA opined that the inte%rity of the seiBed shabu had beenpreserved by the #on#erned poli#e offi#ers.

Petitioners =otion for Re#onsideration2 was denied by the CA in its Resolution20 dated +ovember , 2-.he CA held that the la#5 of inventory or photo%raphs ta5en after petitioners apprehension does not renderthe eviden#e inadmissible. he CA stressed that the inte%rity of the eviden#e ta5en from petitioner was dulypreserved.

3en#e, this petition raisin% the sole assi%nment of error that the CA erred in affirmin% the #onvi#tion ofpetitioner by the RC.

Petitioner avers that the prose#ution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti , as well as there%ularity of the #hain of #ustody. 3e submits that the testimony of P/- 4abo was insuffi#ient to establishthe identity of the shabu seiBed and the re%ularity of the #hain of #ustody. Petitioner opines that the failureof the poli#e offi#ers to observe the proper pro#edure, su#h as the la#5 of physi#al inventory and the non(ta5in% of photo%raphs, for the #ustody of the alle%edly #onfis#ated dru% #ompromised its inte%rity. =oreover,petitioner posits that the prose#ution failed to establish a valid buy(bust operation as there was no pre(operation report and #oordination report filed with the P"9A. 1inally, petitioner ar%ues that, assumin% thatthe alle%ed shabu was re#overed from him, the same is inadmissible in eviden#e for bein% a fruit of thepoisonous tree. Petitioner prays that he be a#@uitted.2?

/n the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines throu%h the /ffi#e of the 4oli#itor )eneral &/4)'asserts that the totality of the eviden#e presented in this #ase #learly indi#ates that &-' the sale of aprohibited dru% had ta5en pla#eE &2' petitioner was #au%ht in the a#t of buyin% the prohibited dru%E &'petitioner was immediately arrested by the poli#e offi#ers upon #onsummation of the saleE and &0' the poli#eoffi#ers found in petitioners possession a prohibited dru%, whi#h was later #onfirmed throu%h the #hemistrye>amination as shabu. =oreover, the /4) ar%ues that non(#omplian#e with the pro#edure laid down in R.A.+o. -!? and its 6mplementin% Rules and Re%ulations &6RR' does not render void and invalid the seiBure ofdan%erous dru%s, as lon% as the inte%rity and evidentiary value of the seiBed items are properly preservedby the apprehendin% offi#ers, as in this #ase. 8astly, the /4) relies on the CAs rulin% on the le%ality ofpetitioners arrest and the admissibility of the #onfis#ated eviden#e.2!

)ur 'ulin*

he petition is bereft of merit.

he essential elements in ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%s are &-' the a##used is in possession of anitem or obje#t that is identified to be a prohibited dru%E &2' su#h possession is not authoriBed by lawE and&' the a##used freely and #ons#iously possess the said dru%.27

his Court holds that all the aforementioned essential elements in ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%swere proven in this #ase.

A #lose loo5 at the se@uen#e of events narrated by the prose#ution witnesses parti#ularly by P/- =arianoindi#ates that an intended buy(bust operation was about to be #arried out a%ainst Dobot. 4aid operation was

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


not su##essful as no sale too5 pla#e between the intended poseur(buyer, P/- =ariano, and Dobot. Dobot wasalso able to evade arrest.

+onetheless, P/- =ariano and the asset #han#ed upon an on%oin% transa#tion between petitioner andDobot. 6t bears stressin% that petitioner was parti#ularly identified by P/- =ariano as the person who bou%htthe suspe#ted sa#het of shabu from Dobot. When petitioner attempted to run, P/- =ariano was able to %rabhim. And when petitioner was as5ed to open his hand,2$ found in his possession was the same sa#het that he

bou%ht from Dobot. hrou%h #hemi#al analysis, the #ontents of the same sa#het were found to be shabu.

he Court %ives full faith and #reden#e to the testimonies of the poli#e offi#ers and upholds the presumptionof re%ularity in the apprehendin% offi#ers performan#e of offi#ial duty. 6t is a settled rule that in #asesinvolvin% violations of the "an%erous "ru%s A#t, #reden#e is %iven to prose#ution witnesses who are poli#eoffi#ers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a re%ular manner, unless there is eviden#eto the #ontrary.2 3owever, petitioner failed to present #lear and #onvin#in% eviden#e to overturn thepresumption that the arrestin% offi#ers re%ularly performed their duties. 9>#ept for his bare alle%ations ofdenial and frame(up, and that the poli#e offi#ers had mista5enly identified him as Dobot, his youn%erbrother, nothin% supports his #laim that the poli#e offi#ers were impelled by improper motives to testifya%ainst him. +eedless to stress, the inte%rity of the eviden#e is presumed to be preserved, unless there is ashowin% of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the eviden#e has been tampered with. /n petitioners #laim thatat the time of his arrest, Dobot was a#tually #onfined in a rehabilitation #enter in Di#utan,- we note thatpetitioner failed to fulfill his promise2 to prove it as fa#t.

8i5ewise, this Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame(up. 4u#h defenses#an easily be fabri#ated and are #ommon ploy in prose#utions for the ille%al sale and possession ofdan%erous dru%s. 6n order to prosper, su#h defenses must be proved with stron% and #onvin#in% eviden#e.

=oreover, it bears stressin% that in wei%hin% the testimonies of the prose#ution witnesses vis,=,vis those ofthe defense, the RC %ave more #reden#e to the version of the prose#ution. his Court finds no reason todisa%ree. Well(settled is the rule that in the absen#e of palpable error or %rave abuse of dis#retion on thepart of the trial jud%e, the trial #ourts evaluation of the #redibility of witnesses will not be disturbed onappeal.0 he reason for this is that the trial #ourt is in a better position to de#ide the #redibility of witnesses,havin% heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifyin% durin% the trial. herule finds an even more strin%ent appli#ation where said findin%s are sustained by the CA as in this #ase.?

8astly, petitioner #laims that there were no inventory and photo%raphs of the prohibited item alle%edlyseiBed from him. 3e ar%ues that as a result of this failure, there is doubt as to the identity and inte%rity ofthe dru%s, and there was a brea5 in the #hain of #ustody of the eviden#e.

he ar%ument does not hold water.

4e#tion 2- of the 6RR of R.A. +o. -!? provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ 2-. Custody and (isposition o! Con!iscated, Seied and/or Surrendered (an*erous

(ru*s, "lant Sources o! (an*erous (ru*s, Controlled "recursors and ssential Chemicals, nstruments/"araphernalia and/or Laoratory uipment.N he P"9A shall ta5e #har%e and have#ustody of all dan%erous dru%s, plant sour#es of dan%erous dru%s, #ontrolled pre#ursors and essential#hemi#als, as well as instrumentsGparaphernalia andGor laboratory e@uipment so #onfis#ated, seiBed andGorsurrendered, for proper disposition in the followin% manner

&a' he apprehendin% offi#erGteam havin% initial #ustody and #ontrol of the dru%s shall, immediately afterseiBure and #onfis#ation, physi#ally inventory and photo%raph the same in the presen#e of the a##used orthe personGs from whom su#h items were #onfis#ated andGor seiBed, or hisGher representative or #ounsel, arepresentative from the media and the "epartment of Justi#e &"/J', and any ele#ted publi# offi#ial who shallbe re@uired to si%n the #opies of the inventory and be %iven a #opy thereofE ;ro+-&-, ()a( ()& *)y+a'+n&n(ory an- *)o(ora*) )a'' 3& on-u(&- a( ()& *'a& %)&r& ()& &ar) %arran( + &r&-> ora( ()& n&ar&( *o'+& (a(+on or a( ()& n&ar&( o//+& o/ ()& a**r&)&n-+n o//+&r(&a, %)+)&&r+ *ra(+a3'&, +n a& o/ %arran('& &+ur&> ;ro+-&-, /ur()&r, ()a( non=o*'+an& %+() ()&&r&u+r&&n( un-&r u(+/+a3'& roun-, a 'on a ()& +n(&r+(y an- &+-&n(+ary a'u& o/ ()&&+&- +(& ar& *ro*&r'y *r&&r&- 3y ()& a**r&)&n-+n o//+&r(&a, )a'' no( r&n-&r o+- an-+na'+- u) &+ur& o/ an- u(o-y o&r a+- +(&H. &9mphasis supplied'

Dased on the fore%oin%, this Court has held that non(#omplian#e with the above(mentioned re@uirements isnot fatal. +on(#omplian#e with 4e#tion 2- of the 6RR does not ma5e the items seiBed inadmissible. What isimperative is ;the preservation of the inte%rity and the evidential value of the seiBed items as the same

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


would be utiliBed in the determination of the %uilt or inno#en#e of the a##used.< !

6n this #ase, the #hain of #ustody was established throu%h the followin% lin5 &-' P/- =ariano mar5ed theseiBed sa#het subje#t of the in flagrante delicto arrest with ;7$ A ARM 89,:;,8<< whi#h stands for his fullname, Aldrin Reyes =arianoE7 &2' a re@uest for laboratory e>amination of the seiBed item was si%ned byPG4r. 6nsp. Rodri%o 9. *illaruelE$ &' the re@uest and the mar5ed item seiBed were personally delivered byP/- 4abo and re#eived by the P+P Crime 8aboratory on the same day of the arrest on April -!, 2E &0'

Chemistry Report +o. "(!$7(9

#onfirmed that the mar5ed item seiBed from petitioner wasmethamphetamine hydro#hlorideE and &?' the mar5ed item was duly identified by P/- =ariano in #ourt andoffered in eviden#e.

3en#e, it is #lear that the inte%rity and the evidentiary value of the seiBed dru%s were preserved. his Court,therefore, finds no reason to overturn the findin%s of the RC that the dru%s seiBed from petitioner were thesame ones presented durin% trial. A##ordin%ly, we hold that the #hain of #ustody of the illi#it dru%s seiBedfrom petitioner remains unbro5en, #ontrary to the assertions of petitioner.

6n sum, we find no reversible error #ommitted by the RC and CA in #onvi#tin% petitioner of ille%alpossession of dru%s. 6t is hornboo5 do#trine that the fa#tual findin%s of the CA affirmin% those of the trial#ourt are bindin% on this Court unless there is a #lear showin% that su#h findin%s are tainted witharbitrariness, #apri#iousness or palpable error.0 his #ase is no e>#eption to the rule. All told, this Court thussustains the #onvi#tion of petitioner for violation of 4e#tion --, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!?.

6#EREFORE, the petition is DENIED. he "e#ision dated Au%ust -2, 2- and the Resolution dated+ovember , 2- of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. CR +o. 2! are AFFIRED.

Costs a%ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

T#IRD DIVISION

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


G.R. No. 20001, January 14, 2015

ETT GE;$LLE=GARO, RE;RESENTED ATTORNE=IN=FACT, INDA G. ROSALESNO6RE;RESENTED #ER NE6 ATTORNE=IN=FACT, GAR LLOD G. ROSALES, Petitioner , v.S;O$SES

VICTORE ANTONIO GARAATO AND JOSE;#INE S. GARAATO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAA, JR., J."

Defore us is a petitionfor review on #ertiorari see5in% to reverse and set aside the =ay 2, 2--"e#ision2and January ?, 2-2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. C* +o. $7-2 affirmin%the Au%ust 7, 2! "e#ision0 of the Re%ional rial Court &RC' of Pasay City, Dran#h -$ dismissin% thepetition? for #an#ellation of #ertifi#ate of title filed by petitioner Detty )epulle()arbo a%ainst respondents*i#torey and Josephine )arabato, for insuffi#ien#y of eviden#e.

he fa#ts of the #ase follow.

+i#5 )arbo! &+i#5' was married to 9duvi%es )arabato &9duvi%es' sometime before -7$. "urin% theirmarria%e, they had a dau%hter named 1loren#e )arabato &1loren#e' who in turn had a son out of wedlo#5,respondent *i#torey Antonio )arabato &*i#torey'. "urin% the subsisten#e of +i#5 and 9duvi%es marria%e,+i#5 #ohabited with petitioner Detty )epulle()arbo &Detty'.

/n June -7, -77, a "eed of 4ale7 was e>e#uted between 9duvi%es and 1loren#e whereby the former sold tothe latter a (s@uare meter par#el of land, #overed by ransfer Certifi#ate of itle &C' +o. -7$!, inPasay City. he deed of sale was si%ned by +i#5 )arbo.

/n =ay -2, -7$, 9duvi%es passed away. hree months after, on Au%ust -2, -7$, +i#5 married Detty. /n/#tober 2!, -$$, 1loren#e re%istered the property in her name and was issued C +o. -2!?.$ 1loren#edied on =ar#h 0, -2 while +i#5 died on 1ebruary 2$, -!.

6n -!, respondent *i#torey, married to #o(respondent Josephine, re%istered the subje#t property in hisname by virtue of a "eed of 4ale e>e#uted by 1loren#e in his favor. /n /#tober -?, -!, respondent wasissued C +o. -!.-

/n Au%ust 2, 2-, petitioner filed a petition

--

for #an#ellation of C +o. -! a%ainst respondents. 4heimpu%ns the validity of the June -7, -77 "eed of 4ale on the %round that the si%natures of +i#5 and9duvi%es were for%ed by 1loren#e. Petitioner also assailed the deed of sale between 1loren#e and *i#torey.

Petitioner #laimed that +i#5 had previously sou%ht the e>amination of his alle%ed si%nature on the June -7,-77 "eed of 4ale by the +ational Dureau of 6nvesti%ation &+D6'. he +D6 e>aminer alle%edly found that the@uestioned si%nature and the standard si%natures of +i#5 were not written by one and the same person.Petitioner further alle%ed that +i#5 had filed a #riminal #omplaint for falsifi#ation a%ainst 1loren#e thou%h the#ase was dismissed due to la#5 of probable #ause. 6n addition, petitioner averred that on 1ebruary !, -,+i#5 wrote a letter-2 to respondent *i#torey remindin% him that the subje#t property was his despite thetransfer of title. Petitioner prayed for the #an#ellation of C +o. -! and the issuan#e of a new#ertifi#ate of title in her name.

*i#torey and Josephine denied the alle%ation of for%ery. hey raise that the a#tion had pres#ribed andGorbarred by la#hes. 1urther they #laimed that Detty has no #ause of a#tion as the subje#t property is the

paraphernal property of 9duvi%es. 8astly, they assert that the sale was re%ular, valid and %enuine. heyasserted that the si%natures appearin% on the deeds of sale are true and %enuine si%natures of the partiesin#ludin% +i#5 )arbo.-

"urin% the trial,petitioner asserted that +i#5 left real properties in#ludin% the property #overed by C +o.-!. 4he #laimed that by virtue of a holo%raphi# will-0 e>e#uted by +i#5 on "e#ember , -$, thesubje#t property was be@ueathed to her. 6n the same will, he disinherited his dau%hter, 1loren#e. Petitioneradmitted that the said holo%raphi# will was never probated.

6n addition, to support her #laim that 1loren#e is not entitled to the property, she presented an A%reement of Partition-? where 1loren#e is one of the parties.Petitioner #ontended that 1loren#e is thus not entitled to the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


subje#t property sin#e she already re#eived her share. Petitioner also admitted that said a%reement wasnever si%ned by 1loren#e.

Petitioner presented as witness,=r. Dienvenido Alba#ea, a handwritin% e>pert and retired employee of the+D6, who at the time of the #ondu#t of the e>amination of the subje#t deed of sale was a "o#ument9>aminer 66 of the +D6. Alba#ea stated that in -2, he was re@uested to e>amine the si%natures of +i#5appearin% in the deeds of sale dated June -7, -77 and June -?, -77 and #ompared it with the spe#imen

si%natures appearin% in the Alien Re%istration 1orm +o. ,-!

a do#ument-7

from the reasurers /ffi#e ofPasay City and several re#eipts-$ issued by +i#5 to his lessees. After he #ondu#ted an e>amination of thesi%natures in these do#uments, he #on#luded that the @uestioned and the standard si%natures of +i#5 werenot written by one and the same person.

Petitioner also presented as witness =r. Reynaldo Duenaventura who testified that he has leased the subje#tproperty sin#e -72 and has paid the rent to petitioner.

/n the other hand, respondent *i#torey denied that 1loren#e for%ed the si%nature of +i#5 )arbo. 3eadmitted that he pur#hased the property from 1loren#e for a valid #onsideration and re%istered it latebe#ause he had no money. Respondent *i#torey presented a do#ument entitled Affidavit of Waiver- datedJune -7, -77 e>e#uted by +i#5 statin% that 9duvi%es a#@uired a par#el of land #overed by C +o. -7$!and that +i#5 did not #ontribute a sin%le #entavo to buy the par#el of land. 6t further stated that +i#5 waivedall his ri%hts, title and interest and possession to land in favor of his wife, 9duvi%es.

6n its Au%ust 7, 2! "e#ision,2 the RC dismissed the #omplaint for #an#ellation of title filed by petitioner.he dispositive portion of the de#ision states, to wit #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, PR9=6494 C/+46"9R9", after study of the eviden#e presented, this Court finds that plaintifffailed to prove by a preponderan#e of eviden#e her #ause of a#tion. A##ordin%ly, the #omplaint for#an#ellation of #ertifi#ate of title is hereby "64=6449" for insuffi#ien#y of eviden#e.

"efendants #ounter#laim is dismissed for la#5 of merit.

+o pronoun#ement as to #osts.

4/ /R"9R9".2-

he RC held that petitioner failed to prove that the si%natures of +i#5 and 9duvi%es )arbo were for%eries.he RC did not %ive #reden#e to the testimony of Alba#ea, holdin% that #ourts are not bound by e>perttestimonies and that the relative wei%ht and suffi#ien#y of e>pert testimony is pe#uliarly within the provin#e

of the trial #ourt to de#ide. here was no eviden#e presented to prove +i#5s ownership over the subje#tland. he RC also noted that from the time the assailed deed of sale and the affidavit of waiver weree>e#uted on June -7, -77 until the subje#t property was re%istered in 1loren#e )arabatos name on/#tober 2!, -$$, +i#5 never instituted a #ivil #ase to @uestion the alle%ed for%ery by his dau%hter. 6t wasonly after +i#5s death that petitioner filed the #ivil suit.

he RC, li5ewise, did not find any le%al %round to de#lare the deed of sale between 1loren#e andrespondent *i#torey invalid. Petitioner merely @uestioned the validity of the deed of sale without anyalle%ations. Petitioner failed to present any eviden#e to show why said do#ument should be nullified.

/n appeal, the CA affirmed the RC rulin% that petitioner failed to prove by #lear, positive and #onvin#in%proof of for%ery in +i#5s si%nature in the deed of sale. he CA also held that =r. Alba#eas opinion as to thetruth or falsity of the si%nature of +i#5 )arbo is not bindin% and #on#lusive upon the #ourt sin#e the re@uestfor e>amination of the deed of sale was not upon the order of the trial #ourt but at the instan#e of thepetitioner. 4u#h e>amination brin%s suspi#ion as to the bias or prejudi#e of the e>aminin% party. =oreover,

while it was #on#luded that there was varian#e in the #ompared si%natures, su#h mere varian#e #annot be#onsidered #on#lusive proof that the si%nature was for%ed. he CA also emphasiBed that the deed of salebein% a notariBed do#ument bears the presumption of re%ularity in its e>e#ution.

As to the deed of sale between 1loren#e and *i#torey, the CA a%reed with the trial #ourt that aside frompresentin% the >ero> #opy of the deed of sale, petitioner failed to present any eviden#e to show why saiddo#ument should be nullified. he appellate #ourt stated that petitioner merely @uestioned the fa#t that thedo#ument was notariBed lon% after the death of 1loren#e. 3owever, the fa#t that the do#ument was notariBedlon% after 1loren#es death does not mean that her si%nature was a for%ery, absent any eviden#e showin%su#h.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


3en#e, this petition.

Petitioner insists that the si%natures of +i#5 and 9duvi%es )arbo on the June -7, -77 "eed of 4alee>e#uted in favor of 1loren#e were for%ed. o support her #laim, petitioner reprodu#ed for referen#e thesi%natures of +i#5 in the earlier deed of sale dated June -?, -77 and #ompared it with +i#5s si%nature inthe assailed "eed of 4ale and the Affidavit of Waiver both dated June -7, -77. 4he pointed out that +i#5ssi%natures in the three do#uments are #on%ruent and e>a#tly ali5e in all details and are produ#ts of a tra#in%

pro#ess from his alle%ed si%nature in the "eed of 4ale dated June -?, -77. As eviden#e, petitionerpresented the findin%s of the handwritin% e>pert, Dienvenido Alba#ea in the uestioned "o#uments Report+o. -(2222 dated 1ebruary 2!, -2 statin% that the @uestioned and the standard si%natures of +i#5)arbo were not written by one and the same person. 6n addition, petitioner avers that sin#e -72, +i#5 wasthe one #olle#tin% the rentals on the subje#t premises and after his death, herein petitioner.

Petitioner also asserts that a #lose #omparison of the alle%ed si%nature of 9duvi%es )arbo in the @uestioned"eed of 4ale dated June -7, -77 and her alle%ed si%nature in the "eed of 4ale dated June -?, -77 wouldshow that the said two si%natures are e>a#tly ali5e in all details whi#h would also show that the alle%edsi%nature of 9duvi%es )arbo in the @uestioned "eed of 4ale dated June -7, -77 is a produ#t of a tra#in%pro#ess from that of her alle%ed si%nature in the June -?, -77 "eed of 4ale and whi#h would show by #learand #onvin#in% eviden#e that the alle%ed si%nature of 9duvi%es )arbo in the @uestioned "eed of 4ale datedJune -7, -77 is fa5e or a for%ery.

Petitioner also assailed the validity of the subse@uent deed of sale e>e#uted between 1loren#e and

respondent *i#torey and notariBed in -!. Petitioner #laims that the said deed of sale althou%h notariBed isa mere private do#ument be#ause 1loren#e #ould not appear before the notary publi# in -! be#ause shedied in -2.

Respondents assert that in a petition for review on #ertiorari, only @uestions of law may be raised by theparties and passed upon by this Court. Respondents submit that the trial #ourt and the CA did not err intheir observation that there is nothin% in petitioners testimony whi#h showed for%ery #ommitted by therespondents. Respondents aver that the CA did not err when it found failure on the part of the petitioner tomeet the #riteria for determinin% whether a si%nature was for%ed. Respondents stress that Alba#ea whothou%h #laimed to have found varian#e in the #ompared si%natures did not however point out distin%uishin%mar5s, #hara#teristi#s and dis#repan#ies in and between the %enuine and false spe#imens of writin% whi#hwould ordinarily es#ape noti#e or dete#tion by an untrained observer. A##ordin% to respondents, petitionerfailed to present eviden#e or justifi#ation to show why the subje#t do#ument should be nullified.

he Court is essentially presented the @uestion of whether the si%natures of +i#5 and 9duvi%es appearin% on

the instruments were for%ed.

Petition is without merit.

he issue raised by petitioner is essentially fa#tual in nature, the determination of whi#h is best left to the#ourts below. Well settled is the rule that the 4upreme Court is not a trier of fa#ts.2he fun#tion of the Courtin petitions for review on #ertiorari is limited to reviewin% errors of law that may have been #ommitted bythe lower #ourts.20 As a matter of sound pra#ti#e and pro#edure, the Court defers and a##ords finality to thefa#tual findin%s of trial #ourts, more so, when as here, su#h findin%s are undisturbed by the appellate#ourt.2?4tated otherwise, the Court refrains from further s#rutiny of fa#tual findin%s of trial #ourts, more sowhen those findin%s are affirmed by the CA. o do otherwise would defeat the very essen#e of Rule 0? andwould #onvert the Court into a trier of fa#ts, whi#h is not meant to be. Certainly the rule admitse>#eptions2! none, however, is appli#able to the #ase at bar. Absent any appli#ation of any of the re#o%niBede>#eptions, this Court is bound by the findin%s of fa#t by the lower #ourts.27

6n any event, 4e#tion -, Rule -- of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of aparty to prove the truth of his #laim or defense, or any fa#t in issue by the amount of eviden#e re@uired bylaw.2$

As a rule, for%ery #annot be presumed and must be proved by #lear, positive and #onvin#in% eviden#e, theburden of proof lies on the party alle%in% for%ery.2 /ne who alle%es for%ery has the burden to establish his#ase by a preponderan#e of eviden#e, or eviden#e whi#h is of %reater wei%ht or more #onvin#in% than thatwhi#h is offered in opposition to it. he fa#t of for%ery #an only be established by a #omparison betweenthe alle%ed for%ed si%nature and the authenti# and %enuine si%nature of the person whose si%nature istheoriBed to have been for%ed.-

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n 5imene* v. Commission on cumenical Mission! >nited Presbterian Church! >SA,2 the Court identifiedand e>plained the fa#tors involved in the e>amination and #omparison of handwritin%s #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

> > > Ihe authenti#ity of a @uestioned si%nature #annot be determined solely upon its %eneral#hara#teristi#s, similarities or dissimilarities with the %enuine si%nature. "issimilarities as re%ardsspontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the stro5es, si%ns of stops, shades, et#., that may befound between the @uestioned si%nature and the %enuine one are not de#isive on the @uestion of the

formers authenti#ity. he result of e>aminations of @uestioned handwritin%, even with the benefit of aid ofe>perts and s#ientifi# instruments, is, at best, in#on#lusive. here are other fa#tors that must be ta5en into#onsideration. he position of the writer, the #ondition of the surfa#e on whi#h the paper where the@uestioned si%nature is written is pla#ed, his state of mind, feelin%s and nerves, and the 5ind of pen andGorpaper used, play an important role on the %eneral appearan#e of the si%nature. Knless, therefore, there is,in a %iven #ase, absolute absen#e, or manifest dearth, of dire#t or #ir#umstantial #ompetent eviden#e on the#hara#ter of a @uestioned handwritin%, mu#h wei%ht should not be %iven to #hara#teristi# similarities, ordissimilarities, between that @uestioned handwritin% and an authenti# one.

he opinion of handwritin% e>perts are not ne#essarily bindin% upon the #ourt, the e>perts fun#tion bein% topla#e before the #ourt data upon whi#h the #ourt #an form its own opinion.0 his prin#iple holds trueespe#ially when the @uestion involved is mere handwritin% similarity or dissimilarity, whi#h #an bedetermined by a visual #omparison of spe#imens of the @uestioned si%natures with those of the #urrentlye>istin% ones.?A findin% of for%ery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwritin% e>perts,be#ause the jud%e must #ondu#t an independent e>amination of the @uestioned si%nature in order to arriveat a reasonable #on#lusion as to its authenti#ity.!

3ere, both the RC and CA found that Alba#ea did not e>plain the manner of e>amination of the spe#imensi%natures in rea#hin% his #on#lusion. Alba#ea did not point out distin%uishin% mar5s, #hara#teristi#s anddis#repan#ies in and between %enuine and false spe#imens of writin% whi#h would ordinarily es#ape noti#e ordete#tion by an untrained observer. he Court also aptly ruled that #ourts are not bound by e>perttestimonies espe#ially that the e>amination was upon the initiative of +i#5 and Detty and they had #omplete#ontrol on what do#uments and spe#imens to be e>amined by the +D6. Detty, in #omin% before us, had theonus of showin% that the si%natures were for%ed. 4he fell short of demonstratin% that her #ase fell within thelimited e>#eptions for disturbin% #on#lusiveness of fa#tual findin%s of lower #ourts.

he petitioner havin% not shown any reason for us to disturb the rulin% of the #ourts a -uo, we are#onstrained to affirm the de#ision of the CA.

6#EREFORE, the petition for review on #ertiorari is DENIED. he =ay 2, 2-- "e#ision and the January

?, 2-2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C* +o. $7-2 are AFFIRED.

With #osts a%ainst the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

T#IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 1<7<92, January 14, 2015

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


$NGA ALOAGO INES, INC. Petitioner , v. RE;$LIC OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

;ERALTA, J."

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the "e#ision-

dated January 2-, 2 and theResolution2dated =ay 7, 2 of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. C* +o. $$2-.

he ante#edent fa#ts are as follows

/n April -!, 20, petitioner Kn%ay =aloba%o =ines, 6n#. filed with the Re%ional rial Court &R'C ' of 8e%aspiCity, a verified petition see5in% the re#onstitution of /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle &0C' ' +o. 07$0 of theCadastral 4urvey of Albay, pursuant to the provisions of Republi# A#t &RA' 2!0 and Presidential "e#ree &PD'+o. -?2.? he #ase was do#5eted as 8RA Case +o. R(272 and raffled off to Dran#h 0. 6n its petition,petitioner alle%ed that it is the re%istered owner of a minin% patent #overed by /C +o. 07$0 whi#h wasissued by then President "iosdado =a#apa%al on July 2, -!2 and entered in the Re%istry of "eeds of theProvin#e of Albay on 4eptember 0, -!2E that sometime in April 20, it re@uested for a #ertified true #opyof /C +o. *3(07$0 from the Re%ister of "eeds of Albay, but despite a dili%ent sear#h, the said #opy #ouldnot be lo#ated by the said offi#e leadin% one to believe that the same was permanently lost or destroyedEthat the property was free from all liens and en#umbran#es of any 5ind whatsoever and there e>isted no

deeds or instruments affe#tin% the same whi#h had been presented for or pendin% re%istration with theRe%ister of "eeds of AlbayE and that the ownerOs dupli#ate of /C +o. *3(07$0 whi#h would serve as a basisfor the re#onstitution, was atta#hed thereto.

"urin% the initial hearin%, petitioner, throu%h #ounsel, showed #omplian#e with the jurisdi#tionalre@uirements. rial thereafter ensued. he Republi# opposed the petition.

/n July -7, 2!, the RC rendered its de#ision! dismissin% the petition.

he RC found that there was no fa#tual and le%al basis to warrant the re#onstitution of petitionerOs alle%edlost #ertifi#ate of title. 6t found that while petitioner submitted a purported ownerOs dupli#ate of /C +o. *3(07$0, the same was not si%ned by then Re%ister of "eeds, Ramon Dalana, both on the fa#e and the dorsalside thereofE that the ownerOs dupli#ate #ertifi#ate bein% an ori%inal dupli#ate, should #ontain the ori%inalsi%nature of the Re%ister of "eeds just li5e the ori%inal #ertifi#ate whi#h should have been on file with theRe%ister of "eedsE that even if the said dupli#ate had the do#umentary seal of the offi#e, it was #onsidered a

s#rap of paper without any probative value sin#e the Re%ister of "eeds as an e?,officio minin% re#order hasno si%nature authenti#atin% said dupli#ateE and to rule otherwise would ma5e the si%nature of the Re%isterof "eeds a useless dispensable #eremony in a orrens title whi#h would open the flood%ates to fraud whi#hwould destroy the re%istration system. he RC further ruled that sin#e petitioner is not the owner of thesurfa#e land whi#h had already been titled to Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#. and petitioner is #laimin% only theminerals underneath, it is not entitled to the #ertifi#ate of title over its minin% patent.

Petitioner filed its appeal with the CA. After the parties had filed their respe#tive pleadin%s, the #ase wasthen submitted for de#ision.

/n January 2-, 2, the CA issued its assailed de#ision, the dispositive portion of whi#h reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6#EREFORE, in view of the fore%oin%, the -7 July 2! de#ision of the Re%ional rial Court of 8e%aspi City&Dran#h 0' in 8RA Case +o. R(272 dismissin% the petition of Kn%ay =aloba%o =ines, 6n#. for there#onstitution of /C +o. *3(07$0 is AFFIRED.7

6n so rulin%, the CA found that sin#e petitioner is not the re%istered owner of the land #overed by /C +o.*3(07$0 and #itin% our earlier rulin% in >nga Malobago Mines! "nc v. "ntermediate Appellate Court@"AC$where we de#lared that as a %rantee of a minin% patent, petitioner did not be#ome the owner of theland where the minerals are lo#ated, hen#e, it has no personality to file for the re#onstitution of lost ordestroyed #ertifi#ate of title. he CA ruled that petitionerOs minin% patent did not @ualify as an interest inproperty as #ontemplated by RA +o. 2! so as to %ive petitioner the authority under the law to initiate apetition for the re#onstitution of said /C. he CA affirmed the RCOs findin%s that the ownerOs dupli#ate of/C +o. *3(07$0 presented by petitioner was insuffi#ient to serve as a basis for the re#onstitution of theori%inal of said /C be#ause of the absen#e of the si%nature of the Re%ister of "eeds.

Petitioner filed a motion for re#onsideration, whi#h the CA denied in its Resolution dated =ay 7, 2.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Petitioner is now before us raisin% the followin% issues #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W3939R /R +/ 39 C/KR /1 APP9A84, 6+ A116R=6+) 39 "64=644A8 /1 R9C/+46K6/+, 9RR9"6+ 64 APPR9C6A6/+ /1 39 4KDJ9C /1 R9C/+46K6/+ W36C3 64 P966/+9RO4 =6+6+) PA9+/R R6)3 / 9:P8/R9 A+" 9:RAC =6+9RA84 W636+ 39 8A+" "94CR6D9" 6+ 39 689 39 68964981 &/C' 49R*6+) =9R98Q A4 A+ 6+4RK=9+ /1 R9)64RA6/+ A4 364 WA4 39 PR/C9"KR9 1/RR9)64RA6/+ /1 =6+6+) PA9+4 A 39 6=9.

W3939R /R +/ 39 AD49+C9 /1 39 46)+AKR9 /1 39 R9)649R /1 "99"4 6+ 39 /R6)6+A8C9R616CA9 /1 689 R9)649R6+) 39 =6+6+) PA9+ 9*9+ 61 "K9 /+8Q / /D*6/K46+A"*9R9+C9 A+" AD49+ A+Q 1RAK" 3A4 39 9119C /1 R9+"9R6+) 39 9+6R9 6+4RK=9+*/6", 6+C8K"6+) 39 )RA+ /1 =6+6+) PA9+ 64981 C/+A6+9" 39R96+, A4 / PR9*9+R9C/+46K6/+ /1 39 4A=9.

Anent the first issue, petitioner #laims that the CA erred in #ate%oriBin% the re#onstitution in this #ase asre#onstitution of ownership of the property itself &surfa#e ownership', when in law and in fa#t, it is really are#onstitution of eviden#e of the %rant by the state in favor of petitioner of the ri%ht to e>plore and e>tra#tmineral deposits within the area des#ribed in the ori%inal #ertifi#ate of titleE that the #on#ept and nature ofthe ri%ht to e>plore and mine a pie#e of land &referred to as minin% patent' is separate and distin#t fromri%ht and title of ownership over the property itself and are not in#onsistent to and e>#lusive of ea#h other.

he orrens title is #on#lusive eviden#e with respe#t to the ownership of the land des#ribed therein, andother matters whi#h #an be liti%ated and de#ided in land re%istration pro#eedin%s.- When the orrensCertifi#ate of itle has been lost or destroyed, RA +o. 2! provides for a spe#ial pro#edure for there#onstitution of su#h title. 4e#tions ? and - of RA +o. 2! state #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#tion ?. Petitions for re#onstitution from sour#es enumerated in se#tions 2&a', 2&b', &a', &b', andGor0&a' of this A#t may be filed with the re%ister of deeds #on#erned by the re%istered owner, his assi%ns, orother person havin% an interest in the property. he petition shall be a##ompanied with the ne#essarysour#es for re#onstitution and with an affidavit of the re%istered owner statin%, amon% other thin%s, that nodeed or other instrument affe#tin% the property had been presented for re%istration, or, if there be any, thenature thereof, the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whatever there%istration of su#h deed or instrument is still pendin% a##omplishment. 6f the re#onstitution is to be madefrom any of the sour#es enumerated in se#tion 2&b' or &b', the affidavit should further state that theownerOs dupli#ate has been lost or destroyed and the #ir#umstan#es under whi#h it was lost or destroyed.hereupon, the re%ister of deeds shall, no valid reason to the #ontrary e>istin%, re#onstitute the #ertifi#ate of title as provided in this A#t.

4e#tion -. +othin% hereinbefore provided shall prevent any re%istered owner or person in interest fromfilin% the petition mentioned in se#tion five of this A#t dire#tly with the proper Court of 1irst 6nstan#e, basedon sour#es enumerated in se#tions 2&a', 2&b', &a', &b', andGor 0&a' of this A#t Provided, however, hatthe #ourt shall #ause a noti#e of the petition, before hearin% and %rantin% the same, to be published in themanner stated in se#tion nine hereof And provided, further, hat #ertifi#ates of title re#onstituted pursuantto this se#tion shall not be subje#t to the en#umbran#e referred to in se#tion seven of this A#t.

hus, the persons who #an file the petition for re#onstitution of a lost #ertifi#ate are the re%istered owner, hisassi%ns or persons in interest in the property. 6n this #ase, petitioner admitted that it was not the owner ofthe land on whi#h the minin% patent was issued as the same was owned and re%istered in the name of RapuRapu =inerals 6n#. hus said petitionerOs witness, Atty. Cela =a%dalen A. A%paoa, to wit #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

. Can you tell the I3on. Court where is this minin% patent situated or lo#ated, if you 5nowHA. his minin% patent #overs several par#els of land situated in the various baran%ays in Rapu Rapu, more#on#entrated in IDaran%ay Pa%#olbon, Rapu Rapu, Albay.

. Qou want to tell the I3on. Court that this minin% patent #annot be seen on the surfa#eH 6s that what youwant to tell the I3on. Court, =adam WitnessHA. hat is ri%ht, be#ause this minin% patent is a ri%ht over minerals found beneath the surfa#e.

. 6 see. 6Om showin% to you a%ain the Report made by the 8and Re%istration Authority whi#h forms part ofthe re#ords whi#h is now mar5ed as 9>hs ;J< and ;J(-< #onsistin% of two &2' pa%es. A #opy of whi#h was sentto Atty. Cela =a%dalen A. A%paoa, #ollaboratin% #ounsel.=y @uestion to you is this, are you this Atty. Cela =a%dalen A%paoa, the #ollaboratin% #ounselHA. Qes, 6 am.

. "id you re#eive a #opy of this reportH

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


A. Qes, 6 do &si#'.

. "id you read the #ontents of this reportHA. Qes, 6 do &si#'.

. 6 am invitin% your attention to this E?). JK, par. &2' of the te#hni#al des#ription of the par#el of landdes#ribed on Plan 8P( 7-0(A ins#ribed on the #ertified >ero> #opy of the /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. *3(

07$0 appears to overlap 8ot +os. $0, $?, $! -7, -$, -, --0, Pls($?$(D, of the Rapu RapuPubli# 8and 4ubdivision.=y @uestion to you is this, are you aware of these lots mentioned in this reportHA. Qes, 6 am sir.

. WhyH Can you tell the I3on. #ourt why you are aware of all these lots, whi#h this minin% patent appearsto overlap all these lots, whi#h 6 mentionedHA. he various par#els of land mentioned in *3 +o. 07$0 are a#tually surfa#e lands, a#tual par#els of landwhi#h have already been a#@uired by the petitionerOs a#tivated &si#' #orporation for purposes of#onsolidatin% the surfa#e ri%hts and the minin% ri%hts, referred to in *3 +o. 07$0.

. +ow, another @uestion, you said that these lots mentioned here are the surfa#e lots, am 6 #orre#tHA. Qes, sir.

. ell the I3on. Court sin#e these are surfa#e lots, do you 5now who owns now all these lots you

mentioned in this report, madam witnessHA. Qes sir, 6 do.

. ell the I3on. Court who is now the owner of these lotsHA. 6t is now owned by the petitionerOs affiliated #ompany, the Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#orporated.

. "o you 5now also this Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#orporatedHA. Qes, 6 do.

. Why do you 5now this #orporation, =adam WitnessHA. 6 am also their le%al #ounsel, sir.

. 3ave you seen these surfa#e lots whi#h are mentioned in this reportHA. Qes, 6 did sir.

. Why, for how many times have you seen these lots mentioned in this report, madam witnessHA. 6 started a#tually %oin% to these parti#ular par#els of land when 6 personally ne%otiated the sale betweenthe ori%inal owners and the #ompany whi#h 6 represented, the Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#orporated, as far asin 22, sir.

. Qou want to tell the I3on. #ourt that you have seen these lots mentioned in this report personallyHA. Qes, sir. 6 %o to the island in Rapu Rapu and durin% the ne%otiation time we met with the ori%inal owners,and 6 personally inspe#t and ta5e a loo5 at that parti#ular par#els of land #overed by the minin% patent.

> > > >

. Can you tell the #ourt who is the President of this Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#orporated, =adam WitnessHA. he #urrent duly(ele#ted President of Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#orporated is =r. Roderi#5 R.C. 4alaBar 666.

. "o you 5now also the president of Kn%ay =aloba%o =ines, 6n#orporatedHA. Qes, 6 do sir.

. Who is the president, if you 5nowHA. 6t is also =r. Roderi#5 R.C. 4alaBar 666, sir.

. As far as you 5now, what is now the status of these several lots you mentioned in this reportHA. hey are now re%istered under the name of Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#. and presently bein% used for minin%purpose.

. What do you mean that it is now re%istered in the name of Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#.H

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


A. hese surfa#e lands are now owned by this #orporation #alled Rapu Rapu =inerals, 6n#., an affiliated#ompany of Kn%ay =aloba%o =ines, 6n#.

. "o you 5now if these lots mentioned in this report are already titled propertiesHA. Qes, these are titled properties.--

6n >nga Malobago Mines! "nc. v. "AC ,-2 herein petitioner filed a #omplaint for annulment and #an#ellation of free patents a%ainst private respondents therein. Petitioner was #laimin% ownership over the surfa#e land

subje#t matter of its minin% patents whi#h also in#luded 8ode Patent +o. *(0! #overed by /C +o. *3(07$0,the title sou%ht to be re#onstituted in this #ase. Petitioner did so as the "ire#tor of 8ands had issued freepatents on portions of the lots #overed by petitionerOs minin% patent. We ruled in favor of privaterespondents. We found that the issuan#e of the lode patents on mineral #laims by the President of thePhilippines in -!2 in favor of the petitioner %ranted to it only the ri%ht to e>tra#t or utiliBe the mineralswhi#h may be found on or under the surfa#e of the land. /n the other hand, the issuan#e of the free patentsby the respondent "ire#tor of 8ands in -7 in favor of the private respondents %ranted to them theownership and the ri%ht to use the land for a%ri#ultural purposes but e>#ludin% the ownership of, and theri%ht to e>tra#t or utiliBe, the minerals whi#h may be found on or under the surfa#e.

he above(#ited #ase, as well as petitionerOs admission in this #ase, established that the surfa#e land#overed by its minin% patent under /C +o. *3(07$0, whi#h title is sou%ht to be re#onstituted, is not ownedby petitioner. hus, not havin% an interest on the land amountin% to a title to the same, petitioner is notpossessed of a le%al personality to institute a petition for judi#ial re#onstitution of the alle%ed lost /C +o.*3(07$?.

Petitioner #ontends that 4e#tion -- of RA +o. 2! in#ludes persons who are not the re%istered owners butwho have re%istered interest in the property #overed by the orrens title whi#h was lost or destroyed who#an file a petition for re#onstitution of title, to wit #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#tion --. Petitions for re#onstitution of re%istered interests, liens and other en#umbran#es, based onsour#es enumerated in se#tions 0&b' andGor 0&#' of this A#t, shall be filed, by the interested party, with theproper Court of 1irst 6nstan#e. he petition shall be a##ompanied with the ne#essary do#uments and shallstate, amon% other thin%s, the number of the #ertifi#ate of title and the nature as well as a des#ription of theinterest, lien or en#umbran#e whi#h is to be re#onstituted, and the #ourt, after publi#ation, in the mannerstated in se#tion nine of this A#t, and hearin% shall determine the merits of the petition and render su#h jud%ment as justi#e and e@uity may re@uire.

A petition for judi#ial re#onstitution of a re%istered interest, lien or en#umbran#e, may be filed only when the#ertifi#ate of title affe#ted has not been totally destroyed, that is, when said #ertifi#ate of title is #omposed of more than one sheet and only the portion of the additional sheet, on whi#h su#h interest, lien or

en#umbran#e was noted is missin%.- he re#onstitution in this #ase does not only refer to a re%isteredinterest whi#h was noted on an additional sheet of a #ertifi#ate of title but the re#onstitution of a lost#ertifi#ate. herefore, petitionerOs relian#e on 4e#tion -- to support its #laim that it #an file for there#onstitution of /C +o. *3(07$0 is mispla#ed.

Petitioner ar%ues that what it a#tually sou%ht is the re#onstitution of eviden#e of the %rant by the 4tate infavor of petitioner of the ri%ht to e>plore and e>tra#t mineral deposits within the area des#ribed in theori%inal #ertifi#ate of title. PetitionerOs filin% of the re#onstitution for that purpose is not within the purview of RA +o. 2! whi#h deals with lost or destroyed #ertifi#ates attestin% title to a pie#e of land.

Dased on our above dis#ussion, we find no need to dis#uss petitionerOs se#ond assi%nment of error.

6#EREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. he "e#ision dated January 2-, 2 and the Resolutiondated =ay 7, 2 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRED.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


ROEL . DARA$G, Petitioner , v. :GJS FLEET ANAGEENT ANILA, INC., :RISTIAN GER#ARDJESEN S:I;SREDER, R. G$ DOINO A. ACA;AAG ANDOR V IIS

ARRO6,K Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ENDOBA, J."

his resolves the petition for review on certiorari - filed by petitioner Rommel D."arau% @petitioner@uestionin% the 4eptember 2?, 2- "e#ision2 and the January 2, 2-0 Resolution ofthe Court of Appeals @CA in CA().R. 4P +o. -2-27. he assailed CA issuan#es affirmed the "e#ision0 andthe Resolution? of the +ational 8abor Relations Commission &+8RC', whi#h reversed the Au%ust -2, 2-"e#ision! of 8abor Arbiter )eobel A. Dartolaba# @A, %rantin% petitioners #laim for permanent disability#ompensation, si#5 wa%es, dama%es, and attorneys fees by disposin% the #ase as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, premises #onsidered, jud%ment is hereby rendered orderin% respondents to pay jointly andseverally #omplainant as followsChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

-. Permanent "isability #ompensation Iin a##ordan#e with the A=/4KP CDA in thesum of K4S$,-.E

2. 4i#5 wa%es for - days in the sum of K4S-,$!.$E

. =oral and 9>emplary dama%es in the sum of 3R99 3K+"R9" 3/K4A+" P94/4&p,.'E

0. Attorneys fees in the sum e@uivalent to ten per#ent &-F' of the jud%ment award.

4/ /R"9R9".7

T)& Fa(

Petitioner was employed by respondent L)J4 1leet =ana%ement =anila, 6n#. @+35S for the second time on

"e#ember 7, 27 to serve as motorman on board the vessel M/V %aal Cement.

/n "e#ember 2, 27, while petitioner was wor5in% in the stora%e room, several steel plates fell and hit hisle%. 4pe#ifi#ally, it resulted in the fra#ture of his ri%ht fibula and tibia. 3e was then medi#ally repatriated,e>amined and treated by the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians, "r. 1idel C. Chua @Dr. Chua of rans()lobal3ealth 4ystems, 6n#., =a5ati CityE and "r. ion% 4am 8im @Dr. im, an orthopedi# sur%eon from Chinese)eneral 3ospital. After his treatment, "r. 8im and "r. Chua #on#luded that petitioners ri%ht le% was fullhealed and that he was fit to (or).$ /n January -!, 2, he e>e#uted the Certifi#ate of 1itness toWor5 releasin% L)J4 of any liability that mi%ht arise as a result of his injury. =u#h later, he underwentseveral e>aminations whi#h #onfirmed that he was fit to wor5.-


/n =ay -2, 2, petitioner was hired a%ain by L)J4 for the third time, for and in behalf of its forei%nprin#ipal, respondent Lristian )erhard Jebsen 45ipsreder A4 @+35S AS, as a motorman on board M/V "bis Arro( . he #ontra#t of employment,-- approved by the Philippine /verseas 9mploymentAdministration@P0A, was for a period of nine &' months with a basi# salary of K4S!0. e>#lusive of

overtime and other benefits #ommen#in% on January 0, 2. 6t #ontained a #lause statin% that ;Ithe+4AG+=K(A=/4KP =odel A%reement CDAs as appli#able shall be #onsidered to be in#orporated into and toform part of the #ontra#t.< -2


/n /#tober -, 2, while petitioner was wor5in% in the en%ine room, he a##identally slipped and fell,injurin% his ri%ht le% a%ain. /n +ovember and -2, 2, the do#tors of =eyer 4ervi#os =edi#us Clini# inDraBil found that he had sustained a &&r& 3ru+&)&a(oa on his ri%ht le% and re#ommended that hedisembar5 from the vessel and #ontinue his treatment in his home port.- 3e was then medi#ally repatriatedon +ovember -0, 2.

Almost immediately upon his arrival on +ovember -!, 2, petitioner reported to "r. Chua who, in turn,

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


referred him a%ain to "r. 8im. After an >(ray test found no fra#ture on his le%, "r. 8im re#ommended that heta5e anti(inflammatory dru%s and antibioti#s for his injury. Con#urrin% in the findin%s and re#ommendationsof "r. 8im, "r. Chua dia%nosed petitioner to have suffered from on(u+on )&a(oa.-0 After re(evaluatin%him on "e#ember 0, 2, and a%ain on "e#ember 2-, 2, "r. 8im found that petitionerhad r&o&r&- from his injuries and -&'ar&- )+ /+( (o %or. 1rom the time he was repatriated until hewas de#lared fit to wor5, he was paid his si#5 wa%es.-? A%ain, he e>e#uted another Certifi#ate of 1itness toWor5.-!


About two and a half months later, on =ar#h ?, 2-, petitioner filed a #omplaint-7 a%ainst L)J4 and L)J4A4, see5in% permanent disability benefits under the +4AG+=K(A=/4KP CDA, si#5 wa%es, dama%es, andattorneys fees. 6n his Affidavit(Complaint,-$ he #laimed that his latest injury whi#h o##urred on boardtheM/V "bis Arro( , to%ether with his previous a##ident on board the M/V %aal Cement! rendered himpermanently disabled.

6t appears that on April -, 2, after the filing of his complaint , petitioner sou%ht the servi#es of "r.=anuel C. Ja#into, Jr. &Dr. 5acinto' of 4ta. eresita )eneral 3ospital in ueBon City. "r. Ja#into issued amedi#al #ertifi#ate- attestin% that petitioner was sufferin% from open fra#ture on his ri%ht fibula and that hewas no lon%er fit to wor5. "r. Ja#into also noted that #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he patient still #omplains of pains parti#ularly on ambulation and in the performan#e of his duties whi#hentails prolon%ed standin%, thus, he was assessed to be physi#ally unfit to %o ba#5 to wor5.2

hus, when petitioner filed his position paper2- on June , 2-, he #ontended that the injuries he hadsuffered while in the servi#e of the respondents entitled him to be #ompensated.

Ruling of the abor Arbiter

After the submission of all the pleadin%s, the 8A rendered his de#ision %rantin% petitioners #laims. 6n findin%them meritorious, the 8A found the medi#al assessment of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians unreliableand biased in favor of the respondents.22 he 8A observed that petitioner was injured twi#e, on#e while hewas assi%ned to wor5 in the vessel M/V %aal Cement and, a%ain, on board the M/V "bis Arro(.Also, the 8Apersonally observed petitioner to have diffi#ulty in wal5in%, bendin% and #arryin% any wei%ht and #on#ludedthat the dia%nosis of "r. Ja#into was more #redible and superior than the findin%s of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians.2


As to petitioners #laim for - days of si#5 wa%es, the 8A also found it to be meritorious but limited it to

S-,$!.$, #onsiderin% that the respondents had already paid a portion of it.

he 8A li5ewise sustained his #laim for dama%es and attorneys fees, opinin% that the respondents a#ted inbad faith when they unjustifiably refused to %ive what was due him under the #ir#umstan#es.

Ruling of the #RC

As stated above, the +8RC reversed the 8A rulin%. he +8RC was of the #onsidered view that the findin% of"r. 8im that petitioner was fit to wor5 should have been %iven #reden#e, #onsiderin% the time and effort thathe spent in monitorin% and treatin% his #ondition. he +8RC noted that he was under the #are of "r. 8imfrom +ovember -7, 2 until he was de#lared fit to wor5 on "e#ember 2-, 2. 6t also found that therewas neither any medi#al eviden#e to dispute "r. 8ims findin%s nor any proof that he @uestioned the findin%sof "r. Chua. he +8RC #on#luded that his open fra#ture must have been sustained after he (as declared fitto (or) on "e#ember 2-, 2. 20


Ruling of the Court of Appeals

he CA opined, as the +8RC did, that the findin%s of "r. 8im and "r. Chua should have been %iven #reden#e.1or the appellate #ourt, the e>tensive medi#al attention %iven by the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians topetitioner from the very be%innin% enabled them to be familiar with, and a#@uire a detailed 5nowled%e of, hismedi#al #ondition, as #ompared to just one &-' day of e>amination by "r. Ja#into. 1or said reason, the CA#on#luded that petitioner was no lon%er entitled to disability benefits when he was de#lared fit to wor5 bythe #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians.

3en#e, this petition.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Petitioner #har%es that the CA ;abused its dis#retion and #ommitted a palpable error< in reversin% thefindin%s of the 8A. A##ordin% to him, the findin%s of the 8A, bein% a trier of fa#ts, should be ;%iven hi%hre%ard and respe#t even finality on appeal.< 2?


6n assertin% his ri%ht to #laim disability #ompensation, petitioner ar%ues that be#ause of the injury to hisri%ht le%, he #ontinues to e>perien#e diffi#ulty in wal5in%, standin% and ;is in#apa#itated to perform the usual

physi#al, strenuous and stressful a#tivities whi#h are the usual fun#tion of seafarers on board a vessel.< 2!

1orhim, the findin%s of "r. Ja#into should have been %iven wei%ht be#ause the said do#tor e>amined andtreated him as an independent orthopedi# medi#al spe#ialist who had no spe#ial relationship with him, otherthan that of do#tor(patient. 3e as#ribes bias to the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians #onsiderin% that theyre%ularly re#eive retainer fees from the respondents.

8astly, petitioner imputes bad faith on the part of the respondents #laimin% that durin% the mediationpro#eedin%s before the CA, the parties, upon the initiative of the respondents, a%reed to settle the #ase forthe amount of S?,.. he hearin% was set on July 2, 2- for the settlement, but the respondents,without any justifiable reason, did not #omply. Petitioner, in the alternative, prays for the enfor#ement of thesettlement a%reement.27


Position of the Respondents

1or their part, the respondents #ounter that petitioner merely suffered a bruise while on board the M/V "bis

Arro( for whi#h he was a##orded e>tensive treatment until he was de#lared fit to wor5. A##ordin% to therespondents, #onsiderin% that the medi#al do#uments submitted would show that he was already de#lared fitto wor5, he must have fra#tured his ri%ht fibula sometime in April of 2-, that is, after his employment withthem. hey posit that his #laim for permanent disability should be dismissed.2$


As for the alle%ed settlement in the CA, the respondents #ontend that they simply withdrew their offer topetitioner be#ause he misrepresented himself as re#uperatin% in his hometown in 6loilo durin% the mediationpro#eedin%s in the CA when all the while he was a#tually abroad wor5in% as a seafarer under the 6mperial*i#tory 4hippin% A%en#y &"mperial '. hey #laimed that the eviden#e would show that the pre(employmentmedi#al e>aminations #ondu#ted on petitioner showed that he was fit to wor5E and in fa#t had alreadyserved two &2' employment #ontra#ts with 6mperial. 1urthermore, the respondents found out that he alsofiled a #laim a%ainst 6mperial for disability benefits.2


T)& Cour( Ru'+n

Petitioner is in error in its submission that the findin%s of the 8A in labor #ases were final and bindin% upon#ourts e>er#isin% appellate jurisdi#tion. he %eneral rule is that due to its re#o%niBed e>pertise as a result ofits spe#ifi# jurisdi#tion, the findin%s of the 8A are a##orded %reat respe#t if one! they #on#urred with thefindin%s of the +8RCE and t(o! if they are supported by substantial eviden#e.

he fore%oin% rule is not absolute and admits of e>#eptions. hus, in the followin% instan#es, the Court is#ompelled to resolve both fa#tual issues alon% with the le%al ones &-' when the findin%s are %roundedentirely on spe#ulations, surmises or #onje#turesE &2' when the inferen#e made is manifestly mista5en,absurd or impossibleE &' when there is %rave abuse of dis#retionE &0' when the jud%ment is based on amisapprehension of fa#tsE &?' when the findin%s of fa#t are #onfli#tin%E &!' when in ma5in% its findin%s, theCourt of Appeals went beyond the issues of the #ase, or its findin%s are #ontrary to the admissions of boththe appellant and the appelleeE &7' when the findin%s are #ontrary to that of the trial #ourtE &$' when thefindin%s are #on#lusions without #itation of spe#ifi# eviden#e on whi#h they are basedE &' when the fa#ts setforth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondentE

&-' when the findin%s of fa#t are premised on the supposed absen#e of eviden#e and #ontradi#ted by theeviden#e on re#ordE or &--' when the Court of Appeals manifestly overloo5ed #ertain relevant fa#ts notdisputed by the parties, whi#h, if properly #onsidered, would justify a different #on#lusion.


6n the #ase at ben#h, the fa#tual findin%s of the 8A differ from those of the +8RC and the CA. hisdiver%en#e of positions #onstrains the Court to review and evaluate assiduously the eviden#e on re#ord anddetermine whether or not petitioner is entitled to disability benefits.

Petitioner Did #ot Compl &ith 'he Procedures

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n Vergara v. $ammonia Maritime Services! "nc.-@Vergara, it was stated that the "epartment of 8abor and9mployment @D0, throu%h the P/9A, has simplified the determination of liability for wor5(related death,illness or injury in the #ase of 1ilipino seamen wor5in% on forei%n o#ean(%oin% vessels. 9very seaman andthe vessel owner &dire#tly or represented by a lo#al mannin% a%en#y' are re@uired to e>e#ute the P/9A4tandard 9mployment Contra#t @P0A,SC as a #ondition sine -ua non prior to the deployment of theseaman for overseas wor5. he P/9A(49C is supplemented by the Colle#tive Dar%ainin%A%reement@C4A between the owner of the vessel and the #overed seaman.

6n this #ase, the parties entered into a #ontra#t of employment in a##ordan#e with the P/9A(49C and theya%reed to be bound by the CDA. hus, in resolvin% petitioners #laim for disability #ompensation, the Courtwill be %uided by the pro#edures laid down in the P/9A(49C and in the CDA. /n this point, 4e#tion 2&D'&'of the P/9A(49C provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Kpon si%n(off from the vessel for medi#al treatment, the seafarer is entitled to si#5ness allowan#e e@uivalentto his basi# wa%e until he is de#lared fit to wor5 or the de%ree of permanent disability has been assessed bythe #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian but in no #ase shall this period e>#eed one hundred twenty &-2' days.

1or this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medi#al e>amination by a #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian within three wor5in% days upon his return e>#ept when he is physi#ally in#apa#itated toso, in whi#h #ase, a written noti#e to the a%en#y within the same period is deemed a #omplian#e. 1ailure ofthe seafarer to #omply with the mandatory reportin% re@uirement shall result in his forfeiture of the ri%ht to#laim the above benefits.

I/ a -o(or a**o+n(&- 3y ()& &a/ar&r -+ar&& %+() ()& a&&n(, a ()+r- -o(or ay 3&ar&&- o+n('y 3&(%&&n ()& E*'oy&r an- ()& &a/ar&r. he third do#tors de#ision shall be final andbindin% on both parties.

/n the other hand, the CDA between petitioner and the respondents states that #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2.-..2 he de%ree of disability whi#h the employer, subje#t to this A%reement, is liable to pay shall bedetermined by a do#tor appointed by the 9mployer. I/ a -o(or a**o+n(&- 3y ()& &a/ar&r an- )+$n+on -+ar&& %+() ()& a&&n(, a ()+r- -o(or ay 3& ar&&- o+n('y 3&(%&&n ()& E*'oy&ran- ()& S&a/ar&r an- )+ $n+on, an- ()& ()+r- -o(or -&++on )a'' 3& /+na' an- 3+n-+n on 3o()*ar(+&. he #opyGies of the medi#al #ertifi#ate and other relevant medi#al reports shall be made availableby the Company to the seafarer.

I9mphases supplied

6nterpretin% an almost identi#al provision of the CDA, the Court ruled, in the re#ent #ase of Philippine$ammonia Ship Agenc! "nc. v. Dumadag2@Dumagdag, that a seafarers non(#omplian#e with themandated pro#edure under the P/9A(49C and the CDA militates a%ainst his #laims. 6n Dumagdag, the Courte>plained#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he P/9A(49C and the CDA %overn the employment relationship between "umada% and the petitioners. T)&(%o +n(ru&n( ar& ()& 'a% 3&(%&&n ()&. T)&y ar& 3oun- 3y ()&+r (&r an-on-+(+on, parti#ularly in relation to this #ase, the me#hanism pres#ribed to determine liability for adisability benefits #laim. 6n Magsasa Maritime Corp. v. Velas-ue*! the Court said The P/9A Contra#t, ofwhi#h the parties are both si%natories, is the law between them and as su#h, its provisions bind both ofthem.T Dua-a, )o%&&r, *uru&- )+ 'a+ %+()ou( o3&r+n ()& 'a+-=ou( *ro&-ur&. 3e#onsulted physi#ians of his #hoi#e re%ardin% his disability after "r. "a#anay, the #ompany(desi%nated

physi#ian, issued his fit(to(wor5 #ertifi#ation for him. here is nothin% inherently wron% with the#onsultations as the P/9A(49C and the CDA allow him to see5 a se#ond opinion. he problem only arosewhen he pre(empted the mandated pro#edure by filin% a #omplaint for permanent disability #ompensationon the stren%th of his #hosen physi#ians opinions, without referrin% the #onfli#tin% opinions to a third do#torfor final determination.

> > > >

T)& /+'+n o/ ()& o*'a+n( on(+(u(&- a 3r&a) o/ Dua-a on(ra(ua' o3'+a(+on (o )a& ()&on/'+(+n a&&n( o/ )+ -+a3+'+(y r&/&rr&- (o a ()+r- -o(or /or a 3+n-+n o*+n+on. hepetitioners #ould not have possibly #aused the non(referral to a third do#tor be#ause they were not aware

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


that "umada% se#ured separate independent opinions re%ardin% his disability. hus, the #omplaint shouldhave been dismissed, for without a bindin% third opinion, the fit(to(wor5 #ertifi#ation of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian stands, pursuant to the P/9A(49C and the CDA. As it turned out, however, the 8A andthe +8RC relied on the assessments of "umada%s physi#ians that he was unfit for sea duty, and awardedhim permanent total disability benefits.

6& /+n- ()& ru'+n o/ ()& 'a3or au()or+(+& &r+ou'y /'a%&- a ()&y %&r& r&n-&r&- +n (o(a'

-+r&ar- o/ ()& 'a% 3&(%&&n ()& *ar(+& N the P/9A(49C and the CDA N on the pres#ribed pro#edurefor the determination of disability #ompensation #laims, parti#ularly with respe#t to the resolution of#onfli#tin% disability assessments of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian and "umada%s physi#ians, withoutsayin% why it was disre%arded or i%noredE it was as if the P/9A(49C and the CDA did not e>ist. T)+ +ra& a3u& o/ -+r&(+on, on+-&r+n ()a(, a 'a3or -+*u(& a-u-+a(or, ()& LA an- ()& NLRCar& &?*&(&- (o u*)o'- ()& 'a%. For a//+r+n ()& 'a3or (r+3una', ()& CA o+((&- ()& a&

ur+-+(+ona' &rror.

As we earlier stressed, "umada% failed to #omply with the re@uirement under the P/9A(49C and the CDA tohave the #onfli#tin% assessments of his disability determined by a ()+r- -o(or as was his duty. 3e offeredno reason that #ould have prevented him from followin% the pro#edure. Defore he filed his #omplaint, orbetween July -, 27, when he #ame homeupon completion of his contract! and +ovember !, 27, when"r. "a#anay de#lared him fit to wor5, he had been under e>amination and treatment &with the ne#essarymedi#al pro#edures' by the #ompany spe#ialists. All the while, the petitioners shouldered his medi#ale>penses, professional fees and #osts of his therapy sessions. 6n short, the petitioners attended to his health

#ondition despite the e>piration of his #ontra#t. We, therefore, find it puBBlin% why "umada% did not brin% tothe petitioners attention the #ontrary opinions of his do#tors and su%%est that they see5 a third opinion.

Whatever his reasons mi%ht have been, "umada%s disre%ard of the #onfli#t(resolution pro#edure under theP/9A(49C and the CDA #annot and should not be tolerated and allowed to stand, lest it en#oura%e a similardefian#e. We stress in this respe#t that we have yet to #ome a#ross a #ase where the parties referred#onfli#tin% assessments of a seafarers disability to a third do#tor sin#e the pro#edure was introdu#ed by theP/9A(49C in 2 whether the Courts rulin% in a parti#ular #ase upheld the assessment of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian, as in Magsasa Maritime Corporation v. #ational abor Relations Commission@Second Division and similar other #ases, or sustained the opinion of the seafarers #hosen physi#ian asin $%S Philippines! "nc. v. Pilar! #ited by the CA, and other #ases similarly resolved. he third(do#tor(referralprovision of the P/9A(49C, it appears to us, has been honored more in the brea#h than in the #omplian#e.his is unfortunate #onsiderin% that the provision is intended to settle disability #laims voluntarily at theparties level where the #laims #an be resolved more speedily than if they were brou%ht to #ourt.

G+&n ()& +ru(an& un-&r %)+) Dua-a *uru&- )+ 'a+, &*&+a''y ()& /a( ()a( )&au&- ()& non=r&/&rra' (o a ()+r- -o(or, Dr. Daanay /+(=(o=%or &r(+/+a(+on u( 3&u*)&'-. 6n Santiago v. Pacbasin Ship Management! "nc.! the Court de#lared TIthere was no a%reement ona third do#tor who shall e>amine him anew and whose findin% shall be final and bindin%. > > > Ihis Court isleft without #hoi#e but to uphold the #ertifi#ation made by "r. 8im with respe#t to 4antia%os disability.T

/n a different plane, "umada% #annot insist that the TfavorableT reports of his physi#ians be #hosen overthe #ertifi#ation of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian, espe#ially if we were to #onsider that the physi#ianshe #onsulted e>amined him for only a day &or shorter' on four different dates between "e#ember ?, 27and April -, 2$. =oreover, we point out that they merely relied on the same medi#al history, dia%nosesand analyses provided by the #ompany(desi%nated spe#ialists. Knder the #ir#umstan#es, we #annot simplysay that their findin%s are more reliable than the #on#lusions of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians.


I9mphases supplied

As in Dumadag! petitioner in this #ase failed to observe the pres#ribed pro#edure of havin% the #onfli#tin%assessments on his disability referred to a third do#tor for a bindin% opinion. Considerin% that petitionerfailed to observe the pro#edures laid down in the P/9A(49C and CDA, the Court is left without a #hoi#e butto uphold the #ertifi#ation issued by the respondents physi#ians with respe#t to his fitness or disability.

Petitioner’s Claim for 4enefits&as Premature

A#tually, petitioners filin% of his #laim was premature. he Court has held that a seafarer may have basis to

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


pursue an a#tion for total and permanent disability benefits, if any of the followin% #onditions arepresent#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

&a' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian failed to issue a de#laration as to his fitness to en%a%e in sea duty ordisability even after the lapse of the -2(day period and there is no indi#ation that further medi#al treatmentwould address his temporary total disability, hen#e, justify an e>tension of the period to 20 daysE

&b' 20 days had lapsed without any #ertifi#ation issued by the #ompany desi%nated physi#ianE

T)& o*any=-&+na(&- *)y++an -&'ar&- ()a( )& + /+( /or &a -u(y %+()+n ()& 120=-ay or240=-ay *&r+o-, a ()& a& ay 3&, 3u( )+ *)y++an o/ )o+& an- ()& -o(or )o&n un-&rS&(+on 20= o/ ()& ;OEA=SEC ar& o/ a on(rary o*+n+on>

&d' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian a#5nowled%ed that he is partially permanently disabled but otherdo#tors who he #onsulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not onlypermanent but total as wellE

&e' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian re#o%niBed that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is adispute on the disability %radin%E

&f' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian determined that his medi#al #ondition is not #ompensable or wor5(related under the P/9A(49C but his do#tor(of(#hoi#e and the third do#tor sele#ted under 4e#tion 2(D&' of

the P/9A(49C found otherwise and de#lared him unfit to wor5E

&%' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian de#lared him totally and permanently disabled but the employerrefuses to pay him the #orrespondin% benefitsE and

&h' he #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian de#lared him partially and permanently disabled within the -2(dayor 20(day period but he remains in#apa#itated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of saidperiods.0

4i%nifi#antly, however, when petitioner filed his #omplaint with the arbitration offi#e on April ?, 2-, he)a-y&( (o onu'( )+ o%n *)y++an, "r. Ja#into. 6t means that, at that time, he was simply armed with -the medi#al findin%s of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ian that he was fit to wor5E and 2 his AffidavitComplaint? where )& a-& )+ o%n on'u+on that his ri%ht le% was a%ain fra#tured be#ause of thein#ident that o##urred in the =G* 6bis Arrow, statin% #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

--. hat my injuries whi#h 6 sustained in my previous a##ident on board thevessel ;1AQA8 C9=9+< had re#urred and its re#urren#e was tri%%eredby my injury whi#h 6 sustained due to the bad fall on board the vessel=* ;6D64 ARR/W.<

-2. > > > >

-. hat 6 feel that my injuries has &si#' already rendered me permanentlydisabled, hen#e 6 am now see5in% my permanent disability#ompensation in a##ordan#e with my CDA, my si#5 wa%es for - days,moral and e>emplary dama%es and attorneys fees and other benefits

provided by law.Dr. 5acinto’s findings cannot be accorded more (eight over those of the Compan,Designated Phsicians

=oreover, in Dumadag! the seafarer #onsulted his own physi#ian on four &0' dates. he petitioner in the #aseat ben#h was e>amined by his own do#tor for only one &-' day, that is, on April -, 2-, almost four &0'months after he was de#lared fit to wor5 by the #ompany(desi%nated do#tors. 9ven worse, the medi#al#ertifi#ate of "r. Ja#into failed to state the reasons on whi#h he based his #on#lusion. hus, the Court finds

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


that the #on#lusions of "r. Ja#into #annot prevail over the findin%s of the respondents physi#ians.

Petitioner is %it to &or)

Aside from the findin% of the #ompany(desi%nated physi#ians, it is worthy to note that the eviden#e onre#ord indubitably shows that petitioner #ontinued to wor5 as a seaman under another employer. As aptlypointed out by the respondents, petitioner was able to a#@uire %ainful employment with 6mperial and was

able to fully serve two &2' separate employment #ontra#ts with them.!

4everal medi#al #ertifi#ations fromhis pre(employment e>aminations were even issued attestin% to his overall fitness.7 Certainly, the Court#annot i%nore these fa#ts.

Petitioner is not ntitled to hisMonetar Claims

6n view of the fore%oin%, petitioner is not entitled to his monetary #laims. 6t should be remembered thatpermanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wa%es in the same 5ind of wor5, orwor5 of similar nature, that he was trained for or a##ustomed to perform, or any 5ind of wor5 whi#h aperson of his mentality and attainment #ould do. 6n disability #ompensation, it is not the injury whi#h is#ompensated, but rather the in#apa#ity to wor5 resultin% in the impairment of ones earnin% #apa#ity.$ Aspetitioner was never a#tually in#apa#itated, it would be hi%hly unjust if he would be awarded the disabilitybenefits whi#h the law a##ords only to the deservin% and utterly unfair to the respondents if they would be

made to pay.

he Court also denies the an#illary #laims for si#5 wa%es, dama%es and attorneys fees for la#5 of fa#tual andle%al bases.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the petition is DENIED.


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


T#IRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 10578, January 14, 2015

ARCATO S. G$ARIN, Complainant , v. ATT. C#RISTINE A.C. LI;IN, Respondent .

R E S O L $ T I O N

VILLARAA, JR., J."

Defore us is a #omplaint- for disbarment filed by Ar#atomy 4. )uarin a%ainst Atty. Christine Antenor(CruB8impin for alle%edly filin% a false )eneral 6nformation 4heet &)64' with the 4e#urities and 9>#han%eCommission &49C' thus violatin% Canon -2 and Rule -.- of the Code of Professional Responsibility &CPR'.

he fa#ts are #ulled from the pleadin%s.

6n 20, )uarin was hired by =r. Celso ). de los An%eles as Chief /peratin% /ffi#er and thereafter asPresident of /neCard Company, 6n#., a member of the 8e%a#y )roup of Companies. 3e resi%ned from his

post effe#tive Au%ust --, 2$ and transferred to 4t. 8u5es =edi#al Center as the *i#e President for1inan#e.

/n +ovember 27, 2$, Atty. 8impin, the Corporate 4e#retary of 8e%a#y Card, 6n#. &8C6', another#orporation under the 8e%a#y )roup, filed with the 49C a )64 for 8C6 for ;updatin% purposes<. he)640identified )uarin as Chairman of the Doard of "ire#tors &D/"' and President.

=ired with alle%ations of anomalous business transa#tions and pra#ti#es, on "e#ember -$, 2$, 8C6 appliedfor voluntary dissolution with the 49C.

/n July 22, 2, )uarin filed this #omplaint with the 6nte%rated Dar of the Philippines Commission on Dar"is#ipline &6DP CD"' #laimin% that Atty. 8impin violated Canon - and Rule -.- of the CPR by 5nowin%lylistin% him as a sto#5holder, Chairman of the Doard and President of 8C6 when she 5new that he had alreadyresi%ned and had never held any share nor was he ele#ted as #hairperson of the D/" or been President of8C6. 3e also never re#eived any noti#e of meetin% or a%enda where his appointment as Chairman would beta5en up. 3e has never a##epted any appointment as Chairman and President of 8C6.

Atty. 8impin admits that she filed the )64 with the 49C listin% )uarin as a sto#5holder, the Chairman of theD/" and President of 8C6. 4he ar%ued that the )64 was provisional to #omply with 49C re@uirements. 6twould have been #orre#ted in the future but unfortunately 8C6 filed for voluntary dissolution shortlythereafter. 4he averred that the )64 was made and submitted in %ood faith and that her #ertifi#ation servedto attest to the information from the last D/" meetin% held on =ar#h , 2$.?


4he asserted that )uarin 5new that he was a sto#5holder. Atty. 8impin said that on /#tober -, 2$, shesent )uarin a te>t messa%e and as5ed him to meet with her so he may si%n a "eed of Assi%nment#on#ernin% shareholdin%s. )uarin responded in the affirmative and said that he would meet with her on1riday, /#tober -7, 2$. )uarin, however, ne%le#ted to show up at the arran%ed time and pla#e forreasons un5nown to Atty. 8impin. /n the stren%th of )uarins positive reply, Atty. 8impin filed the )64 on+ovember 27, 2$.

o belie the #laim that 8C6 never held any board meetin%, Atty. 8impin presented 4e#retarys Certifi#atesdated =ay -!, 2!!, =ay 22, 2!7, and June -, 27$ bearin% )uarins si%nature.

=oreover, Atty. 8impin stated that there were pendin% #riminal #omplaints a%ainst the dire#tors and offi#ersof 8C6, where she and )uarin are #o(respondents Senator Ro?as! et al. v. Celso de los Angeles! etal . and SC v. egac Card! "nc.- 6n those pro#eedin%s, )uarin raised as a defense that the +ovember 27,2$ )64 was spurious andGor perjured. 4he averred that this Court held that ;when the #riminalprose#ution based on the same a#t #har%ed is still pendin% in #ourt, any administrative dis#iplinarypro#eedin%s for the same a#t must await the out#ome of the #riminal #ase to avoid #ontradi#toryfindin%s.< -- "urin% the mandatory preliminary #onferen#e, however, both parties stipulated that the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


#omplaint filed by 4enator Ro>as was dismissed as to )uarin.-2#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

8astly, Atty. 8impin #ontends that )uarin failed to present suffi#ient eviden#e to warrant disbarment. 4hestated that merely presentin% the )64 does not #onstitute as proof of any unethi#al #ondu#t, harassmentand malpra#ti#e.

6n its Report,- the 6DP CD" found that Atty. 8impin violated Canon -, Rules -.- and -.2-0 of the CPR and

thus re#ommended that she be suspended from the pra#ti#e of law for three months. 6t noted that based onthe submissions of the parties, )uarin was never a sto#5holder of 8C6 #onse@uently ma5in% him ineli%ible tobe a member of the D/". +either was there proof that )uarin a#ted as the President of 8C6 but was a meresi%natory of 8C6s ban5 a##ounts. his made the verified statement of Atty. 8impin untrue.-?


=oreover, it was noted that only =r. Celso de los An%eles had the authority to appoint or desi%nate dire#torsor offi#ers of 8e%a#y. Atty. 8impin was aware that this pro#edure was not le%ally permissible. "espite5nowin% this to be irre%ular, she allowed herself to be di#tated upon and falsely #ertified that )uarin was asto#5holder, #hairman and president of the #ompany. he 4e#retarys Certifi#ates with )uarins si%natureAtty. 8impin presented were of no moment sin#e in these )uarin merely a##eded to be#ome a si%natory ofban5 a##ounts and these do not show that )uarin was a sto#5holder.

he 6DP Doard of )overnors in its April -?, 2- Resolution-! adopted in toto the CD" Report. Atty. 8impinmoved for re#onsideration-7 but was denied in the =ar#h 2-, 2-0 Resolution-$ of the 6DP Doard of)overnors.

We adopt the report and re#ommendation of the 6DP. Atty. 8impin has violated Canon -, Rule -.- and Rule-.2 of the CPR.

=embers of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to #omply with the rules of pro#edure, rather thansee5 e>#eptions as loopholes.- A lawyer who assists a #lient in a dishonest s#heme or who #onnives inviolatin% the law #ommits an a#t whi#h justifies dis#iplinary a#tion a%ainst the lawyer.2


"isbarment pro#eedin%s are sui generis and #an pro#eed independently of #ivil and #riminal #ases. AsJusti#e =al#olm stated ;Ithe serious #onse@uen#es of disbarment or suspension should follow only wherethere is a #lear preponderan#e of eviden#e a%ainst the respondent. he presumption is that the attorney isinno#ent of the #har%es prIoferred and has performed his duty as an offi#er of the #ourt in a##ordan#e withhis oath.< 2-


)rounds for su#h administrative a#tion a%ainst a lawyer may be found in 4e#tion 27,22 Rule -$ of theRules

of Court. Amon% these are &-' the use of any de#eit, malpra#ti#e, or other %ross mis#ondu#t in su#h offi#eand &2' any violation of the oath whi#h he is re@uired to ta5e before the admission to pra#ti#e.

After %oin% throu%h the submissions and stipulations of the parties, we a%ree with the 6DP that there is noindi#ation that )uarin held any share to the #orporation and that he is therefore ineli%ible to hold a seat inthe D/" and be the president of the #ompany.2 6t is undisputed that Atty. 8impin filed and #ertified that)uarin was a sto#5holder of 8C6 in the )64. While she posits that she had made the same in %ood faith, her#ertifi#ation also #ontained a stipulation that she made a due verifi#ation of the statements #ontainedtherein. hat Atty. 8impin believed that )uarin would si%n a "eed of Assi%nment is in#onse@uential henever si%ned the instrument. We also note that there was no submission whi#h would support the alle%ationthat )uarin was in fa#t a sto#5holder. We thus find that in filin% a )64 that #ontained false information, Atty.8impin #ommitted an infra#tion whi#h did not #onform to her oath as a lawyer in a##ord with Canon - andRule -.- of the CPR.

We also a%ree with the 6DP that in allowin% herself to be swayed by the business pra#ti#e of havin% =r. delos An%eles appoint the members of the D/" and offi#ers of the #orporation despite the rules enun#iated inthe Corporation Code with respe#t to the ele#tion of su#h offi#ers, Atty. 8impin has trans%ressed Rule -.2 of the CPR.

3owever, #onsiderin% the seriousness of Atty. 8impins a#tion in submittin% a false do#ument we see it fit toin#rease the re#ommended penalty to si> months suspension from the pra#ti#e of law. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Christine A.C. 8impin G$ILT of violation of Canon -, Rule -.-and Rule -.2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A##ordin%ly, we S$S;END respondent Atty.Christine A.C. 8impin from the pra#ti#e of law for SI! 8 ONT#S effe#tive upon finality of this "e#ision,

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


with a warnin% that a repetition of the same or similar a#t in the future will be dealt with more severely.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015

VIRGILIO C. RIONES, Petitioner , v. CO$RT OF A;;EALS AND CAS# ASIA CREDITCOR;ORATION,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

;ERLAS=ERNAE, J."

Assailed in this petition for certiorari - are the "e#ision2 dated =ar#h ?, 2-2 and the Resolution dated/#tober 0, 2-2 of the Court of Appeals&CA' in CA().R. 4P +o. --7070, whi#h annulled the /rders dated4eptember 2, 2-0 and /#tober 22, 2-? of the Re%ional rial Court of =anila, Dran#h -7 &RC' in CivilCase +o. -(-200, denyin% private respondent Cash Asia Credit Corporations &Cash Asia' motion todismiss on the %round of improper venue.#ralawred

T)& Fa(

he instant #ase arose from a Complaint! dated Au%ust 2, 2- filed by *ir%ilio C. Driones &Driones' for+ullity of =ort%a%e Contra#t, Promissory +ote, 8oan A%reement, 1ore#losure of =ort%a%e, Can#ellation ofransfer Certifi#ate of itle &C' +o.2$0!, and "ama%es a%ainst Cash Asia before the RC.7 6n his#omplaint, Driones alle%ed that he is the owner of a property #overed by C +o. -!!$ &subje#tproperty',and that, on July -?, 2-, his sister informed him that his property had been fore#losed and awrit of possession had already been issued in favor of Cash Asia.$ Kpon investi%ation, Driones dis#overedthat &a' on "e#ember !, 27, he purportedly e>e#uted a promissory note, loan a%reement,- and deed ofreal estate mort%a%e--#overin% the subje#t property &subje#t #ontra#ts' in favor of Cash Asia in order toobtain a loan in the amount of P,?,. from the latterE-2 and &b' sin#e the said loan was left unpaid,Cash Asia pro#eeded to fore#lose his property.- 6n this relation, Driones #laimed that he never #ontra#tedany loans from Cash Asia as he has been livin% and wor5in% in *ietnam sin#e /#tober -, 27. 3e further#laimed that he only went ba#5 to the Philippines on "e#ember 2$, 27 until January , 2$ to spend the

holidays with his family, and that durin% his brief stay in the Philippines, nobody informed him of any loana%reement entered into with Cash Asia. 9ssentially, Driones assailed the validity of the fore%oin% #ontra#ts#laimin% his si%nature to be for%ed.-0


1or its part, Cash Asia filed a =otion to "ismiss-? dated Au%ust 2?, 2-, prayin% for the outri%ht dismissalof Drioness #omplaint on the %round of improper venue.-! 6n this re%ard, Cash Asia pointed out the venuestipulation in the subje#t #ontra#ts statin% that ;all le%al a#tions arisin% out of this noti#e in #onne#tion withthe Real 9state =ort%a%e subje#t hereof shall only be brou%ht in or submitted to the jurisdi#tion of theproper #ourt of =a5ati City.< -7 6n view thereof, it #ontended that all a#tions arisin% out of the subje#t#ontra#ts may only be e>#lusively brou%ht in the #ourts of =a5ati City, and as su#h, Drioness #omplaintshould be dismissed for havin% been filed in the City of =anila.-$


6n response, Driones filed an opposition,- assertin%, inter alia, that he should not be #overed by the venuestipulation in the subje#t #ontra#ts as he was never a party therein. 3e also reiterated that his si%natures onthe said #ontra#ts were for%eries.2


T)& RTC Ru'+n

6n an /rder2- dated 4eptember 2, 2-, the RC denied Cash Asias motion to dismiss for la#5 of merit. 6ndenyin% the motion, the RC opined that the parties must be afforded the ri%ht to be heard in view of thesubstan#e of Drioness #ause of a#tion a%ainst Cash Asia as stated in the #omplaint.22


Cash Asia moved for re#onsideration2 whi#h was, however, denied in an /rder20 dated /#tober 22, 2-.A%%rieved, it filed a petition for certiorari 2? before the CA.#ralawred

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


T)& CA Ru'+n

6n a "e#ision2! dated =ar#h ?, 2-2, the CA annulled the RC /rders, and a##ordin%ly, dismissed Drioness#omplaint without prejudi#e to the filin% of the same before the proper #ourt in =a5ati City.27 6t held that theRC %ravely abused its dis#retion in denyin% Cash Asias motion to dismiss, #onsiderin% that the subje#t#ontra#ts #learly provide that a#tions arisin% therefrom should be e>#lusively filed before the #ourts of=a5ati City only.2$ As su#h, the CA #on#luded that Drioness #omplaint should have been dismissed outri%ht

on the %round of improper venue,2

this, notwithstandin% Drioness #laim of for%ery.

"issatisfied, Driones moved for re#onsideration, whi#h was, however, denied in a Resolution- dated/#tober 0, 2-2, hen#e, this petition.

T)& Iu& &/or& ()& Cour(

he primordial issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the CA %ravely abused its dis#retion inorderin% the outri%ht dismissal of Drioness #omplaint on the %round of improper venue.

T)& Cour( Ru'+n


At the outset, the Court stresses that ;Ito justify the %rant of the e>traordinary remedy of certiorari , Ithe

petitioner must satisfa#torily show that the #ourt or @uasi(judi#ial authority %ravely abused the dis#retion#onferred upon it. )rave abuse of dis#retion #onnotes jud%ment e>er#ised in a #apri#ious and whimsi#almanner that is tantamount to la#5 of jurisdi#tion. o be #onsidered U%rave, dis#retion must be e>er#ised in adespoti# manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and %ross as to amount toan evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to a#t at all in#ontemplation of law.< 2


)uided by the fore%oin% #onsiderations, the Court finds that the CA %ravely abused its dis#retion in orderin%the outri%ht dismissal of Drioness #omplaint a%ainst Cash Asia, without prejudi#e to its re(filin% before theproper #ourt in =a5ati City.

Rule 0 of the Rules of Court %overns the rules on venue of #ivil a#tions, to wit #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Rule 0

*9+K9 /1 AC6/+4

49C6/+ -. Venue of real actions. N A#tions affe#tin% title to or possession of real property, or interesttherein, shall be #ommen#ed and tried in the proper #ourt whi#h has jurisdi#tion over the area wherein thereal property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

1or#ible entry and detainer a#tions shall be #ommen#ed and tried in the muni#ipal trial #ourt of themuni#ipality or #ity wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

49C. 2. Venue of personal actions. N All other a#tions may be #ommen#ed and tried where the plaintiff orany of the prin#ipal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the prin#ipal defendants resides, orin the #ase of a non(resident defendant where he may be found, at the ele#tion of the plaintiff.

49C. . Venue of actions against nonresidents. N 6f any of the defendants does not reside and is not foundin the Philippines, and the a#tion affe#ts the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said

defendant lo#ated in the Philippines, the a#tion may be #ommen#ed and tried in the #ourt of the pla#e wherethe plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.

49C. 0. &hen Rule not applicable. N his Rule shall not apply

&a' 6n those #ases where a spe#ifi# rule or law provides otherwiseE or

&b' Where the parties have validly a%reed in writin% before the filin% of the a#tion on the e>#lusive venuethereof.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Dased therefrom, the %eneral rule is that the venue of real a#tions is the #ourt whi#h has jurisdi#tion overthe area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situatedE while the venue of personala#tions is the #ourt whi#h has jurisdi#tion where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the ele#tion of theplaintiff. As an e>#eption, jurispruden#e in egaspi v. Rep. of the Phils. instru#ts that the parties, thru awritten instrument, may either introdu#e another venue where a#tions arisin% from su#h instrument may befiled, or restri#t the filin% of said a#tions in a #ertain e>#lusive venue, vi* .#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he parties, however, are not pre#luded from a%reein% in writin% on an e>#lusive venue, as @ualified by4e#tion 0 of the same rule. 6r+((&n (+*u'a(+on a (o &nu& ay 3& r&(r+(+& +n ()& &n& ()a( ()&u+( ay 3& /+'&- on'y +n ()& *'a& ar&&- u*on, or &r&'y *&r++& +n ()a( ()& *ar(+& ay /+'&()&+r u+( no( on'y +n ()& *'a& ar&&- u*on 3u( a'o +n ()& *'a& /+?&- 3y 'a%. As in any othera%reement, what is essential is the as#ertainment of the intention of the parties respe#tin% the matter.

A r&ar- r&(r+(+& (+*u'a(+on on &nu&, ur+*ru-&n& +n(ru( ()a( +( u( 3& )o%n ()a(u) (+*u'a(+on + &?'u+&. In ()& a3&n& o/ ua'+/y+n or r&(r+(+& %or-, su#h as ;e>#lusively,< ;waivin% for this purpose any other venue,< ;shall only< pre#edin% the desi%nation of venue, ;to thee>#lusion of the other #ourts,< or words of similar import, ()& (+*u'a(+on )ou'- 3& -&&&- a &r&'yan ar&&&n( on an a--+(+ona' /oru, no( a '++(+n &nu& (o ()& *&+/+&- *'a&.0 &9mphases andunders#orin% supplied'

6n this relation, #ase law li5ewise provides that in #ases where the #omplaint assails only the terms,#onditions, andGor #overa%e of a written instrument and not its validity, the e>#lusive venue stipulation#ontained therein shall still be bindin% on the parties, and thus, the #omplaint may be properly dismissed onthe %round of improper venue.? Conversely, therefore, a #omplaint dire#tly assailin% the validity of thewritten instrument itself should not be bound by the e>#lusive venue stipulation #ontained therein andshould be filed in a##ordan#e with the %eneral rules on venue. o be sure, it would be inherently #onsistentfor a #omplaint of this nature to re#o%niBe the e>#lusive venue stipulation when it, in fa#t, pre#isely assailsthe validity of the instrument in whi#h su#h stipulation is #ontained.

6n this #ase, the venue stipulation found in the subje#t #ontra#ts is indeed restri#tive in nature, #onsiderin%that it effe#tively limits the venue of the a#tions arisin% therefrom to the #ourts of =a5ati City. 3owever, itmust be emphasiBed that Drioness #omplaint dire#tly assails the validity of the subje#t #ontra#ts, #laimin%for%ery in their e>e#ution. )iven this #ir#umstan#e, Driones #annot be e>pe#ted to #omply with the aforesaidvenue stipulation, as his #omplian#e therewith would mean an impli#it re#o%nition of their validity. 3en#e,pursuant to the %eneral rules on venue, Driones properly filed his #omplaint before a #ourt in the City of

=anila where the subje#t property is lo#ated.

6n #on#lusion, the CA patently erred and hen#e #ommitted %rave abuse of dis#retion in dismissin% Drioness#omplaint on the %round of improper venue. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. A##ordin%ly, the "e#ision dated =ar#h ?, 2-2 and the Resolutiondated /#tober 0, 2-2 of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. 4P +o. --7070 are hereby ANN$LLEDand SETASIDE. he /rders dated 4eptember 2, 2- and /#tober 22, 2- of the Re%ional rial Court of =anila,Dran#h -7 in Civil Case +o. -(-200 are REINSTATED.


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 19<=<4, January 14, 2015

C: ;O6ER CO;AN LIITED, Petitioner , v. COISSIONER OF INTERNALREVEN$E,Respondent.

HG.R. NOS. 19407=0<

COISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN$E, Petitioner , v. C: ;O6ER CO;AN LIITED,Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

;ERLAS=ERNAE, J."

Assailed in these #onsolidated petitions for review on certiorari - are the "e#ision2 dated =ar#h 2, 2- andthe Resolution dated Au%ust -!, 2- of the Court of a> Appeals &CA' n 4anc in C..A. 9.D. +os. 0!and 00, whi#h affirmed the "e#ision0 dated Au%ust 2$, 2$, the Amended "e#ision? dated 1ebruary -2,2, and the Resolution! dated =ay 7, 2 of the CA 1irst "ivision in CA Case +os. !!, !$$0, and7-!! %rantin% CDL Power Company 8imited &CDL Power' a refund of its e>#ess final withholdin% ta> for theta>able years 2- to 2.#ralawred

T)& Fa(

CDL Power is a limited partnership duly or%aniBed and e>istin% under the laws of the Philippines, andprimarily en%a%ed in the development and operation of the Caliraya, Doto#an, and Lalayaan hydroele#tri#power %eneratin% plants in 8a%una &CDL Proje#t'. 6t is re%istered with the Doard of 6nvestments &D/6' asen%a%ed in a preferred pioneer area of investment under the /mnibus 6nvestment Code of -$7.7


o finan#e the CDL Proje#t, CDL Power obtained in Au%ust 2 a syndi#ated loan from several forei%n

ban5s,$

i.e., D+P Paribas, "ai(i#hi Lan%yo Dan5, 8imited, 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan, 8imited, and 4o#iete)eneral &ori%inal lenders', a#tin% throu%h an 6nter(Creditor A%ent, "ai(i#hi Lan%yo Dan5, a Japanese ban5that subse@uently mer%ed with the 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan, 8imited &6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan' and the 1ujiDan5, 8imited &1uji Dan5', with the mer%ed entity bein% named as =iBuho Corporate Dan5 &=iBuho Dan5'./ne of the mer%ed ban5s, 1uji Dan5, had a bran#h in the Philippines, whi#h be#ame a bran#h of =iBuho Dan5as a result of the mer%er. he 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan and =iBuho Dan5 are residents of Japan for purposesof in#ome ta>ation, and re#o%niBed as su#h under the relevant provisions of the in#ome ta> treaties betweenthe Philippines and Japan.


Certain portions of the loan were subse@uently assi%ned by the ori%inal lenders to various other ban5s,in#ludin% 1ortis Dan5 &+ederland' +.*. &1ortis(+etherlands' and Raiffesen entral Dan5 /sterrei#h A)&Raiffesen Dan5'. 1ortis(+etherlands, in turn, assi%ned its portion of the loan to 1ortis Dan5 4.A.G+.*. &1ortis(Del%ium', a resident of Del%ium. 1ortis(+etherlands and Raiffesen Dan5, on the other hand, are residents of+etherlands and Austria, respe#tively.-


6n 1ebruary 2-, CDL Power borrowed money from 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan, 1ortis(+etherlands, RaiffesenDan5, 1ortis(Del%ium, and =iBuho Dan5 for whi#h it remitted interest payments from =ay 2- to =ay2.-- 6t alle%edly withheld final ta>es from said payments based on the followin% rates, and paid thesame to the Revenue "istri#t /ffi#e +o. ?? of the Dureau of 6nternal Revenue &D6R' &a' fifteen per#ent&-?F' for 1ortis(Del%ium, 1ortis(+etherlands, and Raiffesen Dan5E and &b' twenty per#ent &2F' for6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan and =iBuho Dan5.-2


3owever, a##ordin% to CDL Power, un-&r ()& r&'&an( (a? (r&a(+& between the Philippines and therespe#tive #ountries in whi#h ea#h of the ban5s is a resident, the interest in#ome derived by theaforementioned ban5s are subje#t only to a *r&/&r&n(+a' (a? ra(& o/ 10M, vi* .-


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


AN: CO$NTR OF RESIDENCE

;REFERENTIAL RATE$NDER T#E RELEVANT TA!

TREAT

1ortis Dan5 4.A.G+.*. Del%ium -F &Arti#le ---, RP(Del%ium a>reaty'

6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan

Japan -F &Arti#le --, RP(Japan a>reaty'

Raiffesen entral Dan5/sterrei#h A)

Austria -F &Arti#le --, RP(Austria a>reaty'

=iBuho CorporateDan5

Japan -F &Arti#le --, RP(Japan a>reaty'

A##ordin%ly, on April -0, 2, CDL Power filed a #laim for refund of its e>#ess final withholdin% ta>esalle%edly erroneously withheld and #olle#ted for the years 2- and 22 with the D6R Revenue Re%ion +o.. he #laim for refund of e>#ess final withholdin% ta>es in 2 was subse@uently filed on =ar#h 0,2?.-0


he Commissioner of 6nternal Revenues &Commissioner' ina#tion on said #laims prompted CDL Power to filepetitions for review before the CA, vi* .-?


&-' CTA Ca& No. 8899 was filed by CDL Power on June !, 2 see5in% the refund of e>#ess finalwithholdin% ta> in the total amount of ;8,9,287.20 #overin% the year 2- with respe#t to interestin#ome derived by I1ortis(Del%ium, 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan, and IRaiffesen Dan5. An Answer was filed bythe Commissioner on July 2?, 2.

&2' CTA Ca& No. 8<<4 was filed by CDL Power on =ar#h ?, 20 see5in% for the refund of the amountof ;<,18,174.1 #overin% Ithe year 22 with respe#t to interest in#ome derived by I1ortis(Del%ium,6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan, I=iBuho Dan5, and IRaiffesen Dan5. he Commissioner filed his Answer on =ay7, 20.

> > > >

&' CTA Ca& No. 7188 was filed by CDL IPower on =ar#h , 2? see5in% for the refund of Ithe amountof ;1,14,517.21 #overin% Ithe year 2 with respe#t to interest in#ome derived by I1ortis(Del%ium,and IRaiffesen Dan5. he Commissioner filed his Answer on =ay , 2?. &9mphases supplied'

CA Case +os. !! and !$$0 were #onsolidated first on June -$, 20. 4ubse@uently, however, all three#ases CA Case +os. !!, !$$0, and 7-!! were #onsolidated in a Resolution dated Au%ust ,2?.-!


T)& CTA F+r( D+++on Ru'+n

6n a "e#ision-7 dated Au%ust 2$, 2$, the CA 1irst "ivision ran(&- the petitions and ordered the refundof the amount of ;15,872,95<.42 upon a findin% that the relevant ta> treaties were appli#able to the#ase.-$ 6t #ited "A(6A" Rulin% +o. (- dated July -!, 2, issued by the D6R, #onfirmin% CDL Powers#laim that the interest payments it made to 6ndustrial Dan5 of Japan and Raiffesen Dan5 were subje#t to afinal withholdin% ta> rate of on'y 10M of the %ross amount of interest, pursuant to Arti#le -- of theRepubli# of the Philippines &RP'(Austria and RP(Japan ta> treaties. 3owever, in "A(6A" Rulin% +o. -2!(2 dated Au%ust -$, 2, also issued by the D6R, interest payments to 1ortis(Del%ium were li5ewisesubje#ted to the same rate pursuant to the Proto#ol Amendin% the RP(Del%ium a> reaty, the provisions ofwhi#h apply on in#ome derived or whi#h a##rued be%innin% January -, 2. With respe#t to interestpayments made to 1ortis(+etherlands before it assi%ned its portion of the loan to 1ortis(Del%ium, the CA1irst "ivision li5ewise %ranted the preferential rate.2-


he CA 1irst "ivision #ate%ori#ally de#lared in the Au%ust 2$, 2$ "e#ision that the re@uired 6nternationala> Affairs "ivision &6A"' rulin% was not a #ondition sine -ua non for the entitlement of the ta> relief

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


sou%ht by CDL Power,22 however, upon motion for re#onsideration2 filed by the Commissioner, the CA 1irst"ivision a&n-&- its earlier de#ision by redu#in% the amount of the refund from P-?,!72,?$.02to ;14,<5,720.9 on the %round that CDL Power failed to obtain an 6A" rulin% with respe#t to itstransa#tions with 1ortis(+etherlands.20 6n its Amended "e#ision2? dated 1ebruary -2, 2, the CA 1irst"ivision adopted2! the rulin% in the #ase of Mirant @Philippines 0perations Corporation @formerlB Southernnerg Asia,Pacific 0perations 1Phils.2! "nc. v. Commissioner of "nternal Revenue @Mirant,27 #ited by theCommissioner in his motion for re#onsideration, where the Court #ate%ori#ally pronoun#ed in its Resolution

dated 1ebruary -$, 2$ that an 6A" rulin% must be obtained prior to availin% a preferential ta> rate.

CDL Power moved for the re#onsideration2$ of the Amended "e#ision dated 1ebruary -2, 2, ar%uin% inthe main that the Mirant #ase, whi#h was resolved in a minute resolution, did not establish a le%alpre#edent. he motion was denied, however, in a Resolution2 dated =ay 7, 2 for la#5 of merit.

Kndaunted, CDL Power elevated the matter to the CA n 4anc on petition for review, do#5eted as C..A9.D. +o. 00. he Commissioner li5ewise filed his own petition for review,- whi#h was do#5eted as C..A.9.D. +o. 0!. 4aid petitions were subse@uently #onsolidated.2


CDL Power raised the lone issue of whether or not an 6A" rulin% is re@uired before it #an avail of thepreferential ta> rate. /n the other hand, the Commissioner #laimed that CDL Power failed to e>haustadministrative remedies when it filed its petitions before the CA 1irst "ivision, and that said petitions werenot filed within the two(year pres#riptive period for initiatin% judi#ial #laims for refund.


T)& CTA n $anc Ru'+n

6n a "e#ision0 dated =ar#h 2, 2-, the CA n 4anc a//+r&- the rulin% of the CA 1irst "ivision that aprior appli#ation with the 6A" is indeed re@uired by Revenue =emorandum /rder &R=/' -(2,? whi#hadministrative issuan#e has the for#e and effe#t of law and is just as bindin% as a ta> treaty. he CA n4anc de#lared the Mirant #ase as without any bindin% effe#t on CDL Power, havin% been resolved by thisCourt merely throu%h minute resolutions, and relied instead on the mandatory wordin% of R=/ -(2, asfollows!


666. Poli#ies

> > > >

2. Any availment of the ta> treaty relief shall be pre#eded by an appli#ation by filin% D6R 1orm

+o. - &Appli#ation for Relief from "ouble a>ation' with 6A" at least -? days before thetransa#tion i.e. payment of dividends, royalties, etc.! a##ompanied by supportin%do#uments justifyin% the relief. > > >.

he CA n 4anc further held that CDL Powers petitions for review were filed within the two(yearpres#riptive period provided under 4e#tion 227 of the +ational 6nternal Revenue Code of -7$ &+6RC',and that it was proper for CDL Power to have filed said petitions without awaitin% the final resolution of itsadministrative #laims for refund before the D6RE otherwise, it would have #ompletely lost its ri%ht to see5 judi#ial re#ourse if the two(year pres#riptive period lapsed with no judi#ial #laim filed.

CDL Powers motion for partial re#onsideration and the Commissioners motion for re#onsideration of thefore%oin% "e#ision were both -&n+&- in a Resolution dated Au%ust -!, 2- for la#5 of meritE hen#e, thepresent #onsolidated petitions.

T)& Iu& 3&/or& ()& Cour(

6n G.R. No. 19<=<4, CDL Power submits the sole le%al issue of whether the D6R may add are@uirement prior appli#ation for an 6A" rulin% that is not found in the in#ome ta> treaties si%ned bythe Philippines before a ta>payer #an avail of preferential ta> rates under said treaties.0


/n the other hand, in G.R. No. 19407=0<, the Commissioner maintains that CDL Power is not entitled toa refund in the amount of P-,-0,?-7.2- for the period #overin% ta>able year 2 as it alle%edly failed toe>haust administrative remedies before see5in% judi#ial redress.0-


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


T)& Cour( Ru'+n

he Court resolves the fore%oin% in seriatim.

A. G.R. No. 19<=<4

he Philippine Constitution provides for adheren#e to the %eneral prin#iples of international law as part of the

law of the land. he time(honored international prin#iple of pacta sunt servanda demands the performan#ein %ood faith of treaty obli%ations on the part of the states that enter into the a%reement. 6n this jurisdi#tion,treaties have the for#e and effe#t of law.02


he issue of whether the failure to stri#tly #omply with R=/ +o. -(2 will deprive persons or #orporationsof the benefit of a ta> treaty was s@uarely addressed in the re#ent #ase of Deutsche 4an) A3 Manila 4ranchv. Commissioner of "nternal Revenue0 &"euts#he Dan5', where the Court emphasiBed that ()& o3'+a(+on(o o*'y %+() a (a? (r&a(y u( (a& *r&&-&n& o&r ()& o3&(+& o/ RO No. 1=2000, vi* .#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We re#o%niBe the #lear intention of the D6R in implementin% R=/ +o. -(2, but the CAs outri%ht denialof a ta> treaty relief for failure to stri#tly #omply with the pres#ribed period is not in harmony with theobje#tives of the #ontra#tin% state to ensure that the benefits %ranted under ta> treaties are enjoyed by dulyentitled persons or #orporations.

Dearin% in mind the rationale of ta> treaties, the period of appli#ation for the availment of ta> treaty relief as

re@uired by R=/ +o. -(2 )ou'- no( o*&ra(& (o -+&( &n(+('&&n( (o ()& r&'+&/ as it would#onstitute a +o'a(+on o/ ()& -u(y re@uired by %ood faith in #omplyin% with a ta> treaty. he denial of theavailment of ta> relief for the failure of a ta>payer to apply within the pres#ribed period under theadministrative issuan#e would +*a+r ()& a'u& of the ta> treaty. At most, the appli#ation for a ta> treatyrelief from the D6R should &r&'y o*&ra(& (o on/+r the entitlement of the ta>payer to the relief.

T)& o3'+a(+on (o o*'y %+() a (a? (r&a(y u( (a& *r&&-&n& o&r ()& o3&(+& o/ RO No. 1=2000. 8o%i#ally, non#omplian#e with ta> treaties has ne%ative impli#ations on international relations, andunduly dis#oura%es forei%n investors. While the #onse@uen#es sou%ht to be prevented by R=/ +o. -(2involve an administrative pro#edure, these may be remedied throu%h other system mana%ementpro#esses, e.g., the imposition of a fine or penalty. u( %& anno( (o(a''y -&*r+& ()o& %)o ar&&n(+('&- (o ()& 3&n&/+( o/ a (r&a(y /or /a+'ur& (o (r+('y o*'y %+() an a-+n+(ra(+& +uan&r&u+r+n *r+or a**'+a(+on /or (a? (r&a(y r&'+&/.00 &9mphases and unders#orin% supplied'

he obje#tive of R=/ +o. -(2 in re@uirin% the appli#ation for treaty relief with the 6A" before a partysavailment of the preferential rate under a ta> treaty is to avert the #onse@uen#es of any erroneousinterpretation andGor appli#ation of treaty provisions, su#h as #laims for refundG#redit for overpayment ofta>es, or defi#ien#y ta> liabilities for underpayment.0? 3owever, as pointed out in Deutsche 4an)! theunderlyin% prin#iple of prior appli#ation with the D6R be#omes oo( +n r&/un- a& as in the present#ase where the very basis of the #laim is &rron&ou or ()&r& + &?&+& *ay&n( arisin% from thenon(availment of a ta> treaty relief at the first instan#e. Just as "euts#he Dan5 was not faulted by the Courtfor not #omplyin% with R=/ +o. -(2 prior to the transa#tion,0! so should CDL Power. 6n parallel, CDLPower #ould not have applied for a ta> treaty relief -? days prior to its payment of the final withholdin% ta>on the interest paid to its lenders *r&+&'y 3&au& +( &rron&ou'y *a+- a+- (a? on the basis of there%ular rate as pres#ribed by the +6RC, and not on the preferential ta> rate provided under the differenttreaties. As stressed by the Court, the prior appli#ation re@uirement under R=/ +o. -(2 thenbe#omes+''o+a'.07


+ot only is the re@uirement illo%i#al, but it is also an imposition that is no( /oun- a( a'' +n ()& a**'+a3'&

(a? (r&a(+&. 6n Deutsche 4an) , the Court #ate%ori#ally held that the D6R should not impose additionalre@uirements that would ne%ate the availment of the reliefs provided for under international a%reements,espe#ially sin#e said ta> treaties do not provide for any prere@uisite at all for the availment of the benefitsunder said a%reements.0$


6t bears reiteratin% that the appli#ation for a ta> treaty relief from the D6R should &r&'y o*&ra(& (oon/+r the entitlement of the ta>payer to the relief.0 4in#e CDL Power had re@uested for #onfirmationfrom the 6A" on June $, 2- and /#tober 2$, 22? before it filed on April -0, 2 its administrative#laim for refund of its e>#ess final withholdin% ta>es, the same should be -&&&- u3(an(+a'o*'+an& with R=/ +o. -(2, as in Deutsche 4an). o rule otherwise would defeat the purpose of

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


4e#tion 22 of the +6RC in providin% the ta>payer a remedy for erroneously paid ta> solely on the %round offailure to ma5e prior appli#ation for ta> treaty relief.?- As the Court e>horted in Republic v. 3S' Philippines!"nc.,?2 while the ta>payer has an obli%ation to honestly pay the ri%ht ta>es, the %overnment has a #orollaryduty to implement ta> laws in %ood faithE to dis#har%e its duty to #olle#t what is due to itE and to u('yr&(urn %)a( )a 3&&n &rron&ou'y an- &?&+&'y +&n (o +(.?


6n view of the fore%oin%, the Court holds that the CA 9n Dan# #ommitted reversible error in affirmin% the

redu#tion of the amount of refund to CDL Power from P-?,!72,?$.02 to P-0,$?,72. to e>#lude itstransa#tions with 1ortis(+etherlands for whi#h no 6A" rulin% was obtained.?0 CDL Powers petition in ).R.+os. -$($0 is therefore ran(&-.

he opposite #on#lusion is, however, rea#hed with respe#t to the Commissioners petition in ).R. +os.-07($.

. G.R. No. 19407=0<

he Commissioner laments?? that he was deprived of the opportunity to a#t on the administrative #laim forrefund of e>#ess final withholdin% ta>es #overin% ta>able year 2 whi#h CDL Power filed on =ar#h 0,2?, a 1riday, then the followin% Wednesday, =ar#h , 2?, the latter hastily elevated the #ase on petitionfor review before the CA. 3e ar%ues?! that the failure on the part of CDL Power to %ive him ar&aona3'&(+& to a#t on said #laim is violative of the do#trines of e>haustion of administrative remedies and ofprimary jurisdi#tion.

1or its part, CDL Power maintains?7 that it would be prejudi#ial to wait for the Commissioners rulin% before itfiles its judi#ial #laim sin#e it only has 2 years from the payment of the ta> within whi#h to file both itsadministrative and judi#ial #laims.

he Court rules for CDL Power.

4e#tions 20 and 22 of the +6RC pertain to the refund of &rron&ou'y or ille%ally #olle#ted ta>es. 4e#tion20 applies to administrative #laims for refund, while 4e#tion 22 to judi#ial #laims for refund. 6n bothinstan#es, the ta>payers #laim must be filed within two &2' years from the date of payment of the ta> orpenalty. 3owever, 4e#tion 22 of the +6RC further states the #ondition that a judi#ial #laim for refund maynot be maintained until a #laim for refund or #redit has been duly filed with the Commissioner. heseprovisions respe#tively read#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C. 20. Authority o! the Commissioner to Compromise, Aate and 'e!und or Credit %a3es. heCommissioner may (

> > > >

&C' Credit or refund ta>es erroneously or ille%ally re#eived or penalties imposed without authority, refund thevalue of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in %ood #ondition by the pur#haser, and, in hisdis#retion, redeem or #han%e unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their valueupon proof of destru#tion. +o #redit or refund of ta>es or penalties shall be allowed unless the ta>payer filesin writin% with the Commissioner a #laim for #redit or refund within two &2' years after the payment of theta> or penalty Provided, however, hat a return filed showin% an overpayment shall be #onsidered as awritten #laim for #redit or refund.

> > > >

49C. 22. Re#overy of a> 9rroneously or 6lle%ally Colle#ted. +o suit or pro#eedin% shall be maintained inany #ourt for the re#overy of any national internal revenue ta> hereafter alle%ed to have been erroneously orille%ally assessed or #olle#ted, or of any penalty #laimed to have been #olle#ted without authority, of anysum alle%ed to have been e>#essively or in any manner wron%fully #olle#ted without authority, or of any sumalle%ed to have been e>#essively or in any manner wron%fully #olle#ted, until a #laim for refund or #redit hasbeen duly filed with the CommissionerE but su#h suit or pro#eedin% may be maintained, whether or not su#hta>, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.

6n any #ase, no su#h suit or pro#eedin% shall be filed after the e>piration of two &2' years from the date ofpayment of the ta> or penalty re%ardless of any supervenin% #ause that may arise after payment > > >.&9mphases and unders#orin% supplied'

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6ndubitably, CDL Powers administrative and judi#ial #laims for refund of its e>#ess final withholdin% ta>es#overin% ta>able year 2 were /+'&- %+()+n ()& (%o=y&ar *r&r+*(+& *&r+o-, as shown by the tablebelow?$


6#EN

FINALINCOETA!ES6ERE

6IT##ELD

6#EN

REITTANCE RET$RN

FILED

LAST DA OF

T#E 2=EAR ;RESCRI;TIVE

;ERIOD

6#EN

ADINISTRATIVE CLAI 6AS

FILED

6#EN

;ETITION FOR REVIE6 6ASFILED

1ebruary2

G-G G-G? =ar#h 0, 2? GG?

=ay 2 !G-G !G-G? =ar#h 0, 2? GG?

With respe#t to the remittan#e filed on =ar#h -, 2, the Court a%rees with the ratio#ination of the CAn4anc in debun5in% the alle%ed failure to e>haust administrative remedies. 3ad CDL Power awaited the a#tionof the Commissioner on its #laim for refund prior to ta5in% #ourt a#tion 5nowin% fully well that thepres#riptive period was about to end, it would have lost not only its ri%ht to see5 judi#ial re#ourse but itsri%ht to re#over the final withholdin% ta>es it erroneously paid to the %overnment thereby sufferin%irreparable dama%e.?


Also, while it may be ar%ued that, for the remittan#e filed on June -, 2 that was to pres#ribe on June-, 2?, CDL Power #ould have waited for, at the most, three &' months from the filin% of theadministrative #laim on =ar#h 0, 2? until the last day of the two(year pres#riptive period endin% June -,2?, that is, if only to %ive the D6R at the administrative level an opportunity to a#t on said #laim, the Court#annot, on that basis alone, deny a le%itimate #laim that was, for all intents and purposes, timely filed ina##ordan#e with 4e#tion 22 of the +6RC. here was no violation of 4e#tion 22 sin#e the law, as worded,only re@uires that an administrative #laim be priorly filed.

6n the fore%oin% instan#es, attention must be drawn to the Courts rulin% in P.5. +iener Co.! td. v.David !&Liener', wherein it was held that in no wise does the law, i.e.! 4e#tion ! of the old a> Code &now,4e#tion 22 of the +6RC', imply that the Colle#tor of 6nternal Revenue first a#t upon the ta>payers #laim,and that the ta>payer shall not %o to #ourt before he is notified of the Colle#tors a#tion. 6n Liener, the Courtwent on to say that the #laim with the Colle#tor of 6nternal Revenue was intended primarily as a noti#e ofwarnin% that unless the ta> or penalty alle%ed to have been #olle#ted erroneously or ille%ally is refunded,#ourt a#tion will follow, vi*.#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he #ontroversy #enters on the #onstru#tion of the aforementioned se#tion of the a> Code whi#h readsChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

49C. !. Re#overy of ta> erroneously or ille%ally #olle#ted. N +o suit or pro#eedin% shall be maintained inany #ourt for the re#overy of any national internal revenue ta> hereafter alle%ed to have been erroneously orille%ally assessed or #olle#ted, or of any penalty #laimed to have been #olle#ted without authority, or of anysum alle%ed to have been e>#essive or in any manner wron%fully #olle#ted, until a #laim for refund or #redithas been duly filed with the Colle#tor of 6nternal RevenueE but su#h suit or pro#eedin% may be maintained,whether or not su#h ta>, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. 6n any #ase, no su#h suit or

pro#eedin% shall be be%un after the e>piration of two years from the date of payment of the ta> or penalty.

he pre#edin% provisions seem at first blush #onfli#tin%. 6t will be noti#ed that, whereas the first senten#ere@uires a #laim to be filed with the Colle#tor of 6nternal Revenue before any suit is #ommen#ed, the lastma5es imperative the brin%in% of su#h suit within two years from the date of #olle#tion. Dut the #onfli#t isonly apparent and the two provisions easily yield to re#on#iliation, whi#h it is the offi#e of statutory#onstru#tion to effe#tuate, where possible, to %ive effe#t to the entire ena#tment.

o this end, and bearin% in mind that the 8e%islature is presumed to have understood the lan%ua%e it usedand to have a#ted with full idea of what it wanted to a##omplish, it is fair and reasonable to say withoutdoin% violen#e to the #onte>t or either of the two provisions, that by the first is meant simply that the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Colle#tor of 6nternal Revenue shall be %iven an opportunity to #onsider his mista5e, if mista5e has been#ommitted, before he is sued, but not, as the appellant #ontends that pendin% #onsideration of the #laim,the period of two years provided in the last #lause shall be deemed interrupted. No%)&r& an- +n no %+&-o& ()& 'a% +*'y ()a( ()& Co''&(or o/ In(&rna' R&&nu& u( a( u*on ()& 'a+, or ()a( ()&(a?*ay&r )a'' no( o (o our( 3&/or& )& + no(+/+&- o/ ()& Co''&(or a(+on. > > >. 6& un-&r(an-()& /+'+n o/ ()& 'a+ %+() ()& Co''&(or o/ In(&rna' R&&nu& (o 3& +n(&n-&- *r+ar+'y a a no(+&o/ %arn+n ()a( un'& ()& (a? or *&na'(y a''&&- (o )a& 3&&n o''&(&- &rron&ou'y or +''&a''y +

r&/un-&-, our( a(+on %+'' /o''o%. > > >.!-

&9mphases supplied'

hat bein% said, the fore%oin% refund #laims of CDL Power should all be %ranted, and, the petition of theCommissioner in ).R. +os. -07($ be denied for la#5 of merit. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the petition in ).R. +os. -$($0 is GRANTED. he "e#ision dated =ar#h 2, 2- andthe Resolution dated Au%ust -!, 2- of the Court of a> Appeals &CA' 9n Dan# in C..A. 9.D. +os. 0! and00 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered REINSTATING the "e#ision of the CA1irst "ivision dated Au%ust 2$, 2$ orderin% the refund in favor of CDL Power Company 8imited theamount of P-?,!72,?$.02 representin% its e>#ess final withholdin% ta>es for the ta>able years 2- to2. /n the other hand, the petition in ).R. +os. -07($ is DENIED for la#5 of merit.


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 195272, January 14, 2015

AN: OF T#E ;#ILI;;INE ISLANDS FORERL ;R$DENTIAL AN:, Petitioner! v. S;O$SESDAVID . CASTRO AND CONS$ELO . CASTRO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

;EREB, J."

1or resolution is the petition for review on certiorari assailin% the "e#ision- dated 2! +ovember 2 of theCourt of Appeals, 4pe#ial 4i>th "ivision in CA().R. C* +o. $$$7 and the Resolution2 dated -0 January 2--of the Court of Appeals, 4e#ond "ivision denyin% the motion for re#onsideration, whi#h reversed and setaside the jud%ment rendered by the Re%ional rial Court of ueBon City, Dran#h 7 &RC' dismissin% the#omplaint for "e#laration of +ullity of 4heriffs Certifi#ate of 4ale and "ama%es a%ainst Prudential Dan5.

he Complaint has its ori%ins from the two loans #ontra#ted by respondent 4pouses "avid =. Castro&"avid'0 and Consuelo D. Castro &Consuelo' from Prudential Dan5 in the amounts of P-,. andP??,. in July and Au%ust -$7. he first loans maturity date was on -$ January -$$ while these#ond loan had a maturity date of 2 1ebruary -$$. he P-,. loan was se#ured by a Real 9state=ort%a%e &R9=' over petitionersO property lo#ated in ueBon City and #overed by ransfer Certifi#ate of itle&C' +o. !0277 while the P??,. loan was se#ured by another R9= over two par#els of land lo#atedin Alaminos, 8a%una #overed by C +os. (222? and (222!, re%istered in the name of "avids mother,)uellerma =alabanan.

he loans remained unpaid as of April -! and the balan#es ballooned to P2,2?.? on theP-,. loan and P!,$7.2 on the P??,. loan. Prudential Dan5, throu%h #ounsel, filed twoseparate petitions for fore#losure of the mort%a%e. 6n their first petition, Prudential Dan5 admitted thatthrou%h inadverten#e, the photo#opies of the first two pa%es of the R9= #overin% the properties in 8a%unawere mi>ed and atta#hed to the photo#opies of the last two pa%es of the R9= #overin% the ueBon Cityproperty.? hus, in the +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale, the name ;)uellerma =alabanan rep. by her A61 "avid =.

Castro< appeared as mort%a%or while the amount of mort%a%ed indebtedness is P!,$7.2. he realproperty des#ribed therein however is the ueBon City property.

/n 2! Au%ust -!, the ueBon City property was sold at a publi# au#tion in favor of Prudential Dan5 whosewinnin% bid was P!,..

6n their Complaint, 4pouses Castro alle%ed that the e>trajudi#ial fore#losure and sale of the ueBon Cityproperty is null and void for la#5 of noti#e and publi#ation of the e>trajudi#ial fore#losure sale. 4pousesCastro proffered that the property fore#losed is not one of the properties #overed by the R9= e>e#uted by)uellerma =alabanan whi#h was the basis of the +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale whi#h was posted and published.4pouses Castro prayed for the de#laration of the 4heriffs Certifi#ate of 4ale as null and void and for awardof dama%es.!


6n their Answer, Prudential Dan5 asserted that 4pouses Castro were fully aware that the ueBon Cityproperty was to be fore#losed #onsiderin% that the obli%ation se#ured by it remained unpaid as of the date of

the fore#losure sale. Prudential Dan5 #ited a #leri#al and harmless inadverten#e in the preparation of thepetition for e>trajudi#ial fore#losure but nonetheless, it #laimed that 4pouses Castro, havin% been notified ofthe s#heduled fore#losure of the mort%a%e of the ueBon City property, should have noti#ed theinadverten#e and alerted the sheriff. heir failure to do so, Prudential Dan5 added, #learly amounted tola#hes.7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

he issue before the RC was whether Prudential Dan5 le%ally #omplied with the jurisdi#tional re@uirement of due noti#e prior to the e>trajudi#ial sale of the property in @uestion. he trial #ourt ruled in favor ofPrudential Dan5 and dismissed the #omplaint. 6t found that#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


> > > there was no substantial defe#t on the published and posted noti#e of 4heriffs sale. he publi# hadbeen suffi#iently informed of the identity of the property to be sold, identity of the mort%a%or(borrowerwhose unpaid loan is se#ured by the mort%a%e and the identity of the mort%a%ee. he noti#e did not renderplaintiffs themselves uninformed of the nature of the property to be sold.$

he trial #ourt further held that the obje#tive of noti#e was attained sin#e there was suffi#ient publi#ity of thesale throu%h newspaper publi#ation and that there was no showin% that the property was sold for a pri#e far

below its value, an intimation of #ollusion between the sheriff who #ondu#ted the sale and the ban5.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

/n appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the rulin% of the trial #ourt. he appellate #ourt stressed theimportan#e of noti#e in a fore#losure sale and ruled that failure to advertise a mort%a%e fore#losure sale in#omplian#e with statutory re@uirements #onstitutes a jurisdi#tional defe#t invalidatin% the sale.-


Prudential Dan5 filed a motion for re#onsideration. 6n a Resolution dated -0 January 2--, the Court ofAppeals, 4e#ond "ivision, e>pounded on the previous "e#ision. he appellate #ourt #larified that theerroneous desi%nation of )uellerma =alabanan as mort%a%or, instead of "avid, did not affe#t the validity ofthe noti#e. With respe#t to the amount of the mort%a%ed indebtedness however, the appellate #ourt notedthat the dis#repan#y vis,a,vis the a#tual amount owed by 4pouses Castro is so hu%e that it #an hardly be#onsidered immaterial. he appellate #ourt opined that de#larin% a small amount of indebtedness in thepetition for e>trajudi#ial fore#losure and in the noti#e of sheriffs sale would effe#tively depre#iate the valueof the property. he appellate #ourt then #on#luded that statutory provisions %overnin% publi#ation of noti#eof mort%a%e fore#losure sales must be stri#tly #omplied with and that even sli%ht deviations will invalidatethe noti#e.--


Petitioner Dan5 of the Philippine 6slands &DP6', bein% the su##essor(in(interest of Prudential Dan5, by virtueof the mer%er of the two ban5in% institutions with DP6 as the survivin% entity, filed the instant petition forreview defendin% the rulin% of the trial #ourt and reiteratin% that the published +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale wouldshow that the subje#t of the sale, the ueBon City property, was suffi#iently and properly des#ribed andidentified. Petitioner refuted the appellate #ourts findin% that by indi#atin% a lower amount of indebtedness,the noti#e depre#iated the value of the property subje#t of sale. Petitioner #ited 0li*on v. Court of Appeals!-2 wherein the #ourt de#lared that immaterial errors and mista5es #annot affe#t the suffi#ien#y ofthe noti#e. Petitioner reiterated Prudential Dan5s ri%ht to fore#lose the mort%a%e #onstituted over theueBon City property be#ause the loan se#ured by the mort%a%e had not been paid when it fell due andremained so when the mort%a%e was s#heduled for fore#losure.-


6n her Comment, Consuelo points out as %larin%ly erroneous the +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale whi#h named the

mort%a%or as ;)uellerma =alabanan< and the mort%a%e indebtedness as P!,$7.2. Consuelo avers thatthe properties, the fore#losure of whi#h Prudential Dan5 appears to see5 in its petition, were situated in8a%una, thus, the 4heriff of ueBon City had no jurisdi#tion to issue a +oti#e for 4ale of said property.Consuelo insists that even if the property was sold for more than the mort%a%e indebtedness, su#h wouldnot render the sale valid be#ause publi# poli#y is involved in the need for stri#t #omplian#e with there@uirements of noti#e in e>trajudi#ial fore#losures of mort%a%e. 6t was posited that a lesser amount ofindebtedness as stated in the noti#e would mislead a potential bidder in publi# au#tion and subje#t the valueof the property to ris5 of unwarranted diminution. 1inally, Consuelo #ounters that petitioners relian#e on/liBon is mispla#ed be#ause the alle%ed failure of noti#e in said #ase lay in the fa#t that the noti#e waspublished in a newspaper in lieu of bein% posted. Consuelo ar%ues that in this #ase the property itself wasmisidentified in the petition for fore#losure.-0


he submissions of the parties indi#ate the basi# issue to be whether the errors in the +oti#e of 4heriffs4ale invalidate the noti#e and render the sale and the #ertifi#ate of su#h sale void.

We find merit in the petition.

At the outset, it bears emphasis that fore#losure pro#eedin%s have in their favor the presumption ofre%ularity and the party who see5s to #hallen%e the pro#eedin%s has the burden of eviden#e to rebut thesame.-? 6n this #ase, respondent failed to prove that Prudential Dan5 has not #omplied with the noti#ere@uirement of the law.

4e#tions 2, , and 0 of A#t +o. -? laid down the pro#edure re%ardin% fore#losure sale#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


4e#. 2. 4aid sale #annot be made le%ally outside of the provin#e in whi#h the property sold is situatedE andin #ase the pla#e within said provin#e in whi#h the sale is to be made is subje#t to stipulation, su#h sale shallbe made in said pla#e or in the muni#ipal buildin% of the muni#ipality in whi#h the property or part thereof issituated.

4e#. . +oti#e shall be %iven by postin% noti#es of the sale for not less than twenty days in at least threepubli# pla#es of the muni#ipality or #ity where the property is situated, and if su#h property is worth more

than four hundred pesos, su#h noti#e shall also be published on#e a wee5 for at least three #onse#utivewee5s in a newspaper of %eneral #ir#ulation in the muni#ipality or #ity.

4e#. 0. he sale shall be made at publi# au#tion, between the hours of nine in the mornin% and four in theafternoonE and shall be under the dire#tion of the sheriff of the provin#e, the justi#e or au>iliary justi#e ofthe pea#e of the muni#ipality in whi#h su#h sale has to be made, or a notary publi# of said muni#ipality, whoshall be entitled to #olle#t a fee of five pesos ea#h day of a#tual wor5 performed, in addition to his e>penses.

6n Philippine #ational 4an) v. Maraa! 5r.!-! we elu#idated that one of the most important re@uirements ofA#t +o. -? is that the noti#e of the time and pla#e of sale shall be %iven. 6f the sheriff a#ts without noti#e,or at a time and pla#e other than that desi%nated in the noti#e, the sheriff a#ts without warrant of law.-7 6nthis #ase, the property sold in the publi# au#tion is lo#ated in ueBon City and the fore#losure salepro#eeded as s#heduled at - o#lo#5 in the mornin% on 2! Au%ust -! at the 3all of Justi#e in ueBonCity with Prudential Dan5 as the winnin% bidder, re%isterin% the hi%hest bid of P!,..

6n Centur Savings 4an) v. Samonte-$ #itin% 0li*on v. Court of Appeals,- the Court reiterated the purpose of the rule on noti#e, to wit #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he obje#t of a noti#e of sale is to inform the publi# of the nature and #ondition of the property to be sold,and of the time, pla#e and terms of the sale. +oti#es are %iven for the purpose of se#urin% bidders and toprevent a sa#rifi#e of the property. 6f these obje#ts are attained, immaterial errors and mista5es will notaffe#t the suffi#ien#y of the noti#eE but if mista5es or omissions o##ur in the noti#es of sale, whi#h are#al#ulated to deter or mislead bidders, to depre#iate the value of the property, or to prevent it from brin%in%a fair pri#e, su#h mista5es or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the noti#e, and also to the sale madepursuant thereto.2

he mista5es and omissions referred to in the above(#ited rulin% whi#h would invalidate noti#e pertain tothose whi#h -' are #al#ulated to deter or mislead bidders, 2' to depre#iate the value of the property, or 'to prevent it from brin%in% a fair pri#e.

6n this #ase, the +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale2- states#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

NOTICE OF S#ERIFFS SALE

Kpon e>tra(judi#ial petition for sale under A#t -?, as amended by A#t 0--$, filed Prudential Dan5,mort%a%eIeGs, a%ainst )uellerma =alabanan rep. by her A61 "avid =. Castro mort%a%orGs, with residen#eand postal address at 4ta. Rosa, Alaminos, 8a%una to satisfy the mort%a%ed indebtedness, whi#h as of July-! amounts to +6+9Q 46: 3/K4A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" 49*9+Q P94/4 V 2G- &P!,$7.2'e>#ludin% penaltiesI, #har%es, attorneys fees and all the le%al fees and e>penses for the fore#losure andsale, the 9>(/ffi#io 4heriff of ueBon City or her duly authoriBed "eputy, will sell at PKD86C AKC6/+ to thehi%hest bidder 1/R CA43 and in Philippine Curren#y, on the 2!th day of AK)K4, -!, at - o#lo#5 inthe mornin%, or soon thereafter, infront of the main entran#e of the 3all of Justi#e &beside the ueBon City3all' 9llipti#al Road, "iliman, ueBon City, the followin% des#ribed real estate property, to%ether with all the

improvements e>istin% thereon to wit#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLENO. 84277

R&+(ry o/ D&&- u&on C+(y

A par#el of land &8ot ?(D of the subd. Plan &8RC' Psd($!, approved as a nonsubdn. proje#t, bein% aportion of 8ot ?, Dl5. -, &8RC' Psd(0?!-2, 8RC Re#. +o. ?7?', situated in the "ist. of andan% 4ora, ueBonCity. Dounded on the +9., points 0 to - by Road 8ot - &8RC' Psd(0?!-2E on the 49., points - to 2 by 8ot ?(CE on the 4W., points 2( by 8ot ?(A, both of the subdn. planE and on the +W., points (0 by 8ot 7-( +ewPsd( !!. > > > > #ontainin% an area of /+9 3K"+R9" &-' 4KAR9 =99R4, more or less.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Prospe#tive bidders or buyers are hereby enjoined to investi%ate for themselves the title of the said realestate property and the en#umbran#es thereon, if any there be.

With jurispruden#e as the measure, the errors pointed out by respondents appear to be harmless. he evilsthat #an result from an erroneous noti#e did not arise. here was no intention to mislead, as the errors infa#t did not mislead the bidders as shown by the fa#t that the winnin% re%istered bid of P!,. is overand above the real amount of indebtedness of P2,2?.?. As #orre#tly observed by the trial #ourt, the

amount mentioned in the noti#e did not indi#ate a #ollusion between the sheriff who #ondu#ted the sale andthe respondent ban5. +otably, the mentioned amount of P!,$7.2 refers to the mort%a%e indebtednessnot the value of the property. 9@ually notable is the announ#ement in the noti#e that the amount e>#ludes ;penalties, #har%es, attorneys fees and all le%al fees and e>penses for the fore#losure and sale.<

As re%ards the desi%nation of )uellerma =alabanan as the mort%a%or, we a%ree with the referen#e made bythe Court of Appeals to the #ase of ang)aan Realt Dev’t "nc. v. >CP4 whi#h ruled that the erroneousdesi%nation of an entity as the mort%a%or does not invalidate the noti#e of sale.22


he noti#e rule was #omplied with when the +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale was published in Philippine Re#order, anational newspaper of %eneral #ir#ulation on#e a wee5 for three #onse#utive wee5s or on 2 July, ? and -2Au%ust -!. As a matter of fa#t, the fore#losure pro#edure underta5en by Prudential Dan5 was supportedby the followin% do#uments Affidavit of Publi#ation,2 +oti#e of 4heriffs 4ale,20 4heriffs Certifi#ate of4ale,2? Affidavit of Postin%,2! and =inutes of the Au#tion 4ale.27 6ndubitably, these do#uments eviden#ed there%ular and lawful #ondu#t of the fore#losure pro#eedin%s.

here is mu#h si%nifi#an#e in the fa#t that "avid admitted on the witness stand that he 5new that there wasan appli#ation for fore#losure on their ueBon City property but the R9= used as basis of the fore#losure#overed the 8a%una properties. Kpon learnin% this information, he should have re%istered his obje#tion orsou%ht #larifi#ation from the sheriffs offi#e. 6nstead, he let the publi# au#tion run its #ourse and belatedlyobje#ted to the sale.

1or failure to over#ome the burden of showin% that the fore#losure pro#eedin%s is tainted with irre%ularity,the Certifi#ate of 4ale should be upheld. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. he 2! +ovember 2 "e#ision and -0 January 2-- Resolutionof the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C* +o. $$$7 is REVERSED an- SET ASIDE. he 20 January 27"e#ision of the Re%ional rial Court of ueBon City, Dran#h 7 in Civil Case +o. (7(2-$ isREINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.#ralawlawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 2028<7, January 14, 2015

;EO;LE OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Plaintiff,Appellee, v. JERIC ;AVIA ;ALIBA JERICK AND J$AN$ENDIA DELOS REES J$NEK, Accused,Appellants.

R E S O L $ T I O N

;EREB, J."

1or resolution of the Court is the appeal filed by Jeri# Pavia and Juan Duendia &appellants' from the"e#ision- of the Court of Appeals &CA' dated 7 1ebruary 2-2 in CA().R. CR(3.C. +o. 02. he CAaffirmed the Jud%ment2 of the Re%ional rial Court &RC', Dran#h -, 4an Pedro, 8a%una whi#h foundappellants %uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%s punishableunder 4e#tion -, Arti#le 66 of Republi# A#t &R.A.' +o. -!?. Appellants were senten#ed to suffer the penaltyof life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P?,..#ralawred

T)& An(&&-&n(

/n 2 =ar#h 2?, at around ! in the evenin%, a #onfidential informant reported to 4P/ =el#hor delaPea &4P/ "ela Pea' of the 4an Pedro =uni#ipal Poli#e 4tation, 4an Pedro, 8a%una, that a pot session wasta5in% pla#e at the house of a #ertain ;/bet< lo#ated at 4aranga Cuyab, 4an Pedro, 8a%una. Kpon re#eipt of the information, 4P/ "ela Pea formed a team to #ondu#t poli#e operations a%ainst the suspe#t. he teamwas #omposed of the #onfidential informant, P/2 Rommel Dautista &P/2 Dautista', P/ Jay Parun%%ao &P/Parun%%ao', P/- Jifford 4i%nap and 4P/ "ela Pea as team leader.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

At around in the evenin% of the same date, the team pro#eeded to the tar%et area. When the teamarrived, the members saw that /bets house was #losed. 4in#e the house was not surrounded by a fen#e,P/2 Dautista approa#hed the house and peeped throu%h a small openin% in a window where he saw fourpersons in a #ir#le havin% a pot session in the livin% room. P/ Parun%%ao then tried to find a way to enterthe house and found an unlo#5ed door. 3e entered the house, followed by P/2 Dautista and they #au%ht thefour persons en%a%ed in a pot session by surprise. After they introdu#ed themselves as poli#e offi#ers, theyarrested the four suspe#ts and seiBed the dru% paraphernalia found at the s#ene.0 Amon% those arrestedwere herein appellants, from ea#h of whom a plasti# sa#het #ontainin% white #rystalline substan#e were

#onfis#ated by P/ Parun%%ao after he #ondu#ted a body sear#h on their persons.? P/ Parun%%ao mar5edthe plasti# sa#het he seiBed from appellant Pavia with ;JP,< representin% the initials of Jeri# Pavia while thatta5en from appellant Duendia was mar5ed, also by P/ Parun%%ao, with ;JD,< representin% the initials ofJuan Duendia.! hese plasti# sa#hets were transmitted to the #rime laboratory for @ualitative e>aminationwhere they tested positive for shabu.< 7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Conse@uently, appellants were #har%ed with violation of 4e#tion -, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!? in twoseparate but identi#ally worded informations whi#h read #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

hat on or about 2 =ar#h 2?, in the =uni#ipality of 4an Pedro, Provin#e of 8a%una, Philippines, andwithin the jurisdi#tion of this 3onorable Court a##used without authority of the law, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, #ontrol and #ustody Iof =93A=P39A=6+93Q"R/C38/R6"9, #ommonly 5nown as shabu, a dan%erous dru%, wei%hin% Bero point Bero two &.2' %ram,in the #ompany of two persons.$

When arrai%ned, both appellants pleaded not %uilty to the offense.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

A joint trial of the #ases ensued.

6n defense, appellants provided a different version of the in#ident. A##ordin% to them, on the @uestioneddate and time, they were roamin% the streets of 4arangga Cuyab, sellin% star apples. A prospe#tive buyerof the fruits #alled them over to his house and re@uested them to %o inside, to whi#h they a##eded. Whenthey were about to leave the house, several persons who introdu#ed themselves as poli#emen arrived andinvited appellants to %o with them to the pre#in#t. here, they were in#ar#erated and falsely #har%ed withviolation of the Comprehensive "ru%s A#t of 22.-


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& RTC

he trial #ourt found that the prose#ution was able to prove the offense #har%ed throu%h the spontaneous,positive and #redible testimony of its witness. he trial #ourt noted that the poli#e offi#ers #arried out alawful arrest before they pro#eeded with the bodily sear#h of appellants. =oreover, there was no #lear and#onvin#in% eviden#e that the team of P/ Parun%%ao was inspired by any improper motive when they#arried out their operation. hus, the testimony of P/2 Dautista on the witness stand, narratin% the events

leadin% to the apprehension of appellants, deserves full faith and #redit.--


T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Cour( o/ A**&a'

/n appeal, the CA affirmed the de#ision of the RC, upon a findin% that the eviden#e on re#ord support thetrial #ourts #on#lusion that a lawful arrest, sear#h and seiBure too5 pla#e, and that the prose#ution fullydis#har%ed its burden of establishin%, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements ne#essary for the#onvi#tion of the offense #har%ed.-2


/n the #ontention of appellants that their warrantless arrest was ille%al and, therefore, the items seiBedfrom them as a result of that arrest were inadmissible in eviden#e a%ainst them, the CA held that thisar%ument totally la#5s merit. A##ordin% to the CA#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We stress at the outset that the Iappellants failed to @uestion the le%ality of their warrantless arrest. heestablished rule is that an a##used Iis estopped from assailin% the le%ality of Ihis arrest if Ihe failed to

move for the @uashin% of the "nformation a%ainst Ihim before Ihis arrai%nment. Any obje#tion involvin%the arrest or the pro#edure in the #ourts a#@uisition of jurisdi#tion over the person of an a##used must bemade before Ihe enterIs Ihis pleaE otherwise, the obje#tion is deemed waived.

6n any event, we #arefully e>amined the re#ords and now hold that the warrantless arrests #ondu#ted onIappellants were valid. 4e#tion ?, Rule -- of the Rules on Criminal Pro#edure lists the situations when aperson may be arrested without a warrant > > >.

> > > >

Para%raph &a' of 4e#tion ? is #ommonly 5nown as an in flagrante delicto arrest. 1or a warrantless arrest ofan a##used #au%ht in flagrante delicto to be valid, two re@uisites must #on#ur &-' the person to be arrestedmust e>e#ute an overt a#t indi#atin% that he has just #ommitted, is a#tually #ommittin%, or is attemptin% to#ommit a #rimeE and &2' su#h overt a#t is done in the presen#e or within the view of the arrestin% offi#er.

After a #areful evaluation of the eviden#e in its totality, we hold that the prose#ution su##essfully establishedthat the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto.

We emphasiBe that the series of events that led the poli#e to the house where the pot session was#ondu#ted and to their arrest were tri%%ered by a ;tip< from a #on#erned #itiBen that a ;pot session< was inpro%ress at the house of a #ertain 0bet < at Daran%%ay Cuyab, 4an Pedro, 8a%una. Knder the #ir#umstan#es,the poli#e did not have enou%h time to se#ure a sear#h warrant #onsiderin% the ;time element< involved inthe pro#ess &i.e., a pot session may not be an e>tended period of time and it was then p.m.'. 6n viewof the ur%en#y, 4P/ =el#hor dela Pea immediately dispat#hed his men to pro#eed to the identified pla#e toverify the report. At the pla#e, the respondin% poli#e offi#ers verified throu%h a small openin% in the windowand saw the a##used(appellants and their other two &2' #ompanions sniffin% ;shabu< to use the words ofP/2 Dautista. here was therefore suffi#ient probable #ause for the poli#e offi#ers to believe that thea##used(appellants were then and there #ommittin% a #rime. As it turned out, the a##used(appellants indeedpossessed and were even usin% a prohibited dru%, #ontrary to law. When an a##used is #au%ht in flagrante

delicto, the poli#e offi#ers are not only authoriBed but are duty(bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

6n the #ourse of the arrest and in a##ordan#e with poli#e pro#edures, the Iappellants were fris5ed, whi#hsear#h yielded the prohibited dru% in their possession. hese #ir#umstan#es were suffi#ient to justify thewarrantless sear#h > > > that yielded two &2' heat(sealed plasti# sa#hets of ;shabu.< > > >

> > > >

All the > > > re@uirements for a lawful sear#h and seiBure are present in this #ase. he poli#e offi#ers hadprior justifi#ation to be at a #ertain ;/bets< pla#e as they were dispat#hed by their des5 offi#erE theyarrested the Iappellants as they had reason to believe that they were ille%ally usin% and possessin% a

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


prohibited dru% and dru% paraphernalia. he sear#h of the Iappellants in#ident to their arrest yielded the#onfis#ated #rystalline substan#e whi#h later proved to be ;shabu<. 6n the #ourse of their lawful intrusion,they inadvertently saw the various dru% paraphernalia s#attered in the livin% room. As these items wereplainly visible, the poli#e offi#ers were justified in seiBin% them.

> > > >

As #orre#tly found by the trial #ourt, the IappellantsO story is unworthy of belief. heir denial must fail in theli%ht of the positive identifi#ation and de#larations made by the prose#ution witness. As stated earlier, P/2Dautista testified in a strai%htforward and #ate%ori#al manner re%ardin% the identities of the malefa#tors. 3edid not waver despite the defense #ounselOs ri%id @uestionin%.

Courts %enerally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the fa#ility with whi#h an a##used #an#on#o#t it to suit his or her defense. As eviden#e that is both ne%ative and self(servin%, this defense #annotattain more #redibility than the testimony of the prose#ution witness who testified #learly, providin% therebypositive eviden#e on the various aspe#ts of the #rime #ommitted. /ne su#h positive eviden#e is the result ofthe laboratory e>amination #ondu#ted by the P+P #rime 8aboratory on the dru%s re#overed from theIappellants whi#h revealed that the #onfis#ated plasti# sa#hets tested positive for the presen#e of Tshabu<two &2' heated transparent plasti# sa#het with mar5in%s ;JD< and ;JP< #ontainin% .2 %ram of white#rystalline substan#e ea#h both yielded positive results.-

With respe#t to appellants #laim that the prose#ution failed to establish the #hain of #ustody be#ause thepoli#e operatives failed to stri#tly #omply with 4e#tion 2- &-' of R.A. +o. -!?, the CA has this to say#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he #hain of #ustody rule re@uires that the admission of an e>hibit be pre#eded by eviden#e suffi#ient tosupport a findin% that the matter in @uestion is what the proponent #laims it to be.

Contrary to what the Iappellants want to portray, the #hain of #ustody of the seiBed prohibited dru% wasshown not to have been bro5en. After the seiBure of the plasti# sa#hets #ontainin% white #rystallinesubstan#e from the IappellantsO possession and of the various dru% paraphernalia in the livin% room, thepoli#e immediately brou%ht the Iappellants to the poli#e station, to%ether with the seiBed items. P/Parun%%ao himself brou%ht these items to the poli#e station and mar5ed them. he plasti# sa#hets#ontainin% white #rystalline substan#e was mar5ed TJDT and TJPT. hese #onfis#ated items were immediatelyturned over by P/2 Dautista to the P+P Re%ional Crime 8aboratory /ffi#e CalabarBon, Camp *i#ente 8im,Calamba City for e>amination to determine the presen#e of dan%erous dru%s. After a @ualitative e>amination#ondu#ted on the spe#imens, 1orensi# Chemist 8orna Ravelas ria #on#luded that the plasti# sa#hets

re#overed from the a##used(appellants tested positive for methylamphetamine hydro#hloride, a prohibiteddru%, per Chemistry Report +os. "($-(? and "($2(?.

When the prose#ution presented these mar5ed spe#imens in #ourt, P/2 Daustista positively identified themto be the same items they seiBed from the Iappellants and whi#h P/ Parun%%ao later mar5ed at the poli#estation, from where the seiBed items were turned over to the laboratory for e>amination based on a dulyprepared re@uest.

hus, the prose#ution established the #ru#ial lin5 in the #hain of #ustody of the seiBed items from the timethey were first dis#overed until they were brou%ht for e>amination. Desides, as earlier stated, theIappellants did not #ontest the admissibility of the seiBed items durin% the tria-. he inte%rity and theevidentiary value of the dru%s seiBed from the a##used(appellants were therefore duly proven not to havebeen #ompromised.

Jurispruden#e teems with pronoun#ements that failure to stri#tly #omply, with 4e#tion 2l &-', Arti#le 66 of

R.A. +o. -!? does not ne#essarily render an a##usedOs arrest ille%al or the items seiBed or #onfis#ated fromhim inadmissible. What is of utmost importan#e is the preservation of the inte%rity and the evidentiary valueof the seiBed items, as these would be utiliBed in the determination of the %uilt or inno#en#e of the a##used.6n the present #ase, we see substantial #omplian#e by the poli#e with the re@uired pro#edure on the #ustodyand #ontrol of the #onfis#ated items, thus showin% that the inte%rity of the seiBed eviden#e was not#ompromised. We refer parti#ularly to the su##ession of events established by eviden#e, to the overallhandlin% of the seiBed items by spe#ified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where noobje#tion to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudi#ed mind, show that theeviden#e seiBed were the same eviden#e tested and subse@uently identified and testified to in #ourt.-0 > > >

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Our Ru'+n

We deny the appeal.

Appellants are #har%ed under 4e#tion -, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!?, whi#h provides#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

S&(+on 1. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties! Social 3atherings or Meetings. Any person

found possessin% any dan%erous dru% durin% a party, or at a so#ial %atherin% or meetin%, or in thepro>imate #ompany of at least two &2' persons, shall suffer the ma>imum penalties provided for in 4e#tion-- of this A#t, re%ardless of the @uantity and purity of su#h dan%erous dru%s.

he elements for the ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%s under 4e#tion - of R.A. +o. -!? are the sameas those for the violation of 4e#tion -- of the law &-' possession by the a##used of an item or obje#tidentified to be a prohibited or dan%erous dru%E &2' su#h possession is not authoriBed by lawE &' the freeand #ons#ious possession of the dru% by the a##used,-? with the additional element that &0' the a##usedpossessed the prohibited or dan%erous dru% durin% a so#ial %atherin% or meetin%, or in the #ompany of atleast two persons.

As #orre#tly found by the CA, the eviden#e for the prose#ution showed the presen#e of all these elements.he testimony of P/2 Dautista on this point is determinative #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

@. When you said P/ Parun%%ao saw that the door of the house was notlo#5ed, what did you doH

a. 3e entered the house and we followed him, maam Isi#.

> >> >

@. 6n what part of the house where Isi# this Isi# people en%a%ed in a potsessionH

a. At the sala, maam Isi#.

@. And what was their rea#tion when P/ Parun%%ao and the rest of theteam bar%ed inH

a. hey were surprised, maam Isi#.> >> >

@. And what did you do after thatH

a. P/ Parun%%ao introdu#ed ourselves as poli#e offi#ers, maam Isi#.

@. What happened after thatH

a. We #onfis#ated the dru% paraphernalias Isi# and then P/ Parun%%ao#ondu#ted body sear#h and was able to #onfis#ate shabu from the twoof the people there maam Isi#.

@. Where were you when P/ Parun%%ao #ondu#ted a sear#hH

a. 6 was behind him, maam Isi#.

@. "id you see him #ondu#tin% a sear#hH

a. Qes, maam Isi#.

@. What did you see him doin%H

a. 6 saw that he was able to #onfis#ate small plasti# sa#het #ontainin%shabu, maam Isi#.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


@. 1rom whomH

a. 1rom Jeri# Pavia and Juan Duendia, maam Isi#.

@. 6f this Jeri# Pavia is in #ourt ri%ht now, will you be able to point to himH

a. Qes, maam Isi#.

@. Please point to himH

a. hat man in the first row wearin% yellow shirt, maam Isi# &pointed to aperson inside the #ourtroom who, when as5ed answered by the name of Jeri# Pavia'.

@. Qou said that you saw P/ Parun%%ao #onfis#ated plasti# sa#het#ontainin% shabu from Jeri# Pavia, from what part of his body was heable to #onfis#ate the sameH

a. 1rom the po#5et of Jeri# Pavia, maam Isi#.

> >> >

@. Qou said that P/ Parun%%ao #onfis#ated plasti# sa#het with white#rystalline substan#e from two person Isi#, one was identified as Jeri#Pavia, who was the other oneH

a. 6t was Juan Duendia, maam Isi#

@. Please identify him if he is in #ourtH

a. hat man also in the first row, at the ri%ht portion, wearin% yellow shirt&pointed to a person who, when as5ed answered by the name of JuanDuendia'.

@. Where were you when P/ Parun%%ao #onfis#ated from Juan Duendiathe plasti# sa#het of shabuH

a. 6 was behind him, maam Isi#.> >> >

@. /n Isi# what part of the body of Juan Duendia was the item ta5en by/ffi#er Parun%%aoH

a. Also in Isi# his po#5et, maam Isi#.-!

he same testimony of P/2 Dautista also established the #hain of #ustody of the prohibited dru%s ta5en fromappellants. hus#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

@. Qou said that you saw P/ Parun%%ao #onfis#ated Isi# plasti# sa#het#ontainin% shabu from Jeri# Pavia, from what part of his body was heable to #onfis#ate the sameH

a. 1rom the po#5et of Jeri# Pavia, maam Isi#.

@. And do you 5now what P/ Parun%%ao do with the itemH

a. 3e pla#ed mar5in% on it, maam Isi#.

@. 6n what pla#e did he put the mar5in%H

a. At the poli#e station maam Isi#.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


@. What mar5in%s did he pla#eH

a. 6t was mar5ed JP representin% the initials of a##used Jeri# Pavia, maamIsi#.

@. Where were you when /ffi#er Parun%%ao pla#ed that mar5in% on theitemH

a. 6 was beside him, maam Isi#.

@. Can you des#ribe the plasti# sa#hetH

a. 6t is a small transparent plasti# sa#het whi#h #ontains white #rystallinesubstan#e otherwise 5nown as shabu, maam Isi#.

@. Who was in possession of the plasti# sa#het from the time P/Parun%%ao too5 it from the possession of Jeri# Pavia up to the poli#estationH

a. 6t was P Parun%%ao, maam Isi#.

@. 6 am showin% to you a plasti# sa#het with white #rystalline substan#ewith mar5in%s JP, please identify the sameH

a. his is the same item #onfis#ated from Jeri# Pavia, maam Isi#.

> >> >

@. "id you #ome to 5now what /ffi#er Parun%%ao do with the plasti# sa#het#onfis#ated from Juan DuendiaH

a. 3e brou%ht it to the poli#e station, maam Isi#.

@. And what did he do with itH

a. 3e pla#ed the mar5in%s JD, maam Isi#.

@. Who was in possession of the plasti# sa#het with mar5in%s JD from

Aplaya Iwhere the pot session too5 pla#e to the poli#e stationHa. 6t was P/ Parun%%ao, maam.

@. 6 am showin% to you a plasti# sa#het with white #rystalline substan#ewith mar5in%s JD, please identify the sameH

a. his is the same item #onfis#ated from Juan Duendia by P/ Parun%%ao,maam Isi#.-7

6t is li5ewise important to note that it was P/2 Dautista himself who brou%ht the re@uest-$ for laboratorye>amination of the substan#e ta5en from appellants from the 4an Pedro Poli#e 4tation to the P+P Crime8aboratory in Calamba City, thereby ensurin% that the inte%rity of the #onfis#ated items are preserved. hus,the fa#t that the apprehendin% team did not stri#tly #omply with the pro#edural re@uirements of 4e#tion2-&-', Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!? does not ne#essarily render appellants arrest ille%al or the items seiBedfrom them inadmissible in eviden#e.

As held by this Court in the #ase of People v. lanitaB-#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

RA -!? and its subse@uent 6mplementin% Rules and Re%ulations &6RR' do not re@uire stri#t #omplian#e asto the #hain of #ustody rule. > > >. We have emphasiBed that what is essential is ;the preservation of theinte%rity and the evidentiary value of the seiBed items, as the same would be utiliBed in the determination of the %uilt or inno#en#e of the a##used.<

Driefly stated, non(#omplian#e with the pro#edural re@uirements under RA -!? and its 6RR relative to the#ustody, photo%raphin%, and dru%(testin% of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that #an render

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


void the seiBures and #ustody of dru%s in a buy(bust operation.

> > > >

> > >. We re#o%niBe that the stri#t #omplian#e with the re@uirements of 4e#tion 2- may not always bepossible under field #onditionsE the poli#e operates under varied #onditions, and #annot at all times attend toall the ni#eties of the pro#edures in the handlin% of #onfis#ated eviden#e.

1inally, both the trial #ourt and the CA reje#ted appellants defense of denial and frame(up for failure tosubstantiate the same.

6ndeed, the defenses of denial and frame(up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it#an easily be #on#o#ted and is a #ommon and standard defense ploy in prose#utions for violations of the"an%erous "ru%s A#t. 6n order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame(up must be proved with stron%and #onvin#in% eviden#e. 6n the #ase before us, appellants failed to present suffi#ient eviden#e in support of their #laims. Aside from their self(servin% assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster theiralle%ations.2 Conse@uently, in the absen#e of #lear and #onvin#in% eviden#e that the poli#e offi#ers wereinspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appre#iate the defense of denial or frame(up andinstead apply the presumption of re%ularity in the performan#e of offi#ial duty by law enfor#ementa%ents.2-


6n view of the fore%oin%, we see no reason to deviate from the well(dis#ussed de#ision of the CA, its findin%sand #on#lusions havin% been supported by both law and appli#able jurispruden#e.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the "e#ision of the Court of Appeals dated 7 1ebruary 2-2 in CA().R. CR(3.C. +o. 02isAFFIRED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 14<74<, January 14, 2015

IELDA, LEONARDO, FIDELINO, AB$CENA, JOSEFINA, ANITA AND SISA, ALL S$RNAEDSJ$CO, Petitioner s, v. RE;$LIC OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Petitioner,"ntervenor! v. FELISA D.

ONIFACIO AND VSD REALT P DEVELO;ENT COR;ORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


LEONARDO=DE CASTRO, J."

1or review on certiorari under Rule 0? of the Rules of Court is the "e#ision- dated 1ebruary 2, 2- andResolution2 dated June 2!, 2- of the Court Appeals in CA().R. C*. +o. ?7777, whi#h affirmed in toto the"e#ision dated January , -$ of the Re%ional rial Court &RC', Dran#h -2! of Caloo#an City in Civil Case+o. C(!!.

he present #ontroversy involves a par#el of land, measurin% around 2,$? s@uare meters, whi#h ori%inallyformed part of a wider tra#t of land, dubbed as the =aysilo 9state &subje#t land'.

he fa#tual ante#edents, as #ulled from the re#ords, are as follows

Petitioners 6melda, 8eonardo, 1idelino, ABu#ena, Anita, and 4isa, all surnamed 4yju#o &#olle#tively referredto as petitioners' are the re%istered #o(owners of the subje#t land, lo#ated in the then Darrio of Dalintawa5,=uni#ipality of Caloo#an, Provin#e of RiBal, under ransfer Certifi#ate of itle &C' +o. (-$?0 issued bythe Re%ister of "eeds of Caloo#an City on =ar#h 2!, -$0. he subje#t land is parti#ularly des#ribed underpetitioners #ertifi#ate of title as follows #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6t is hereby #ertified that #ertain land situated in the Caloo#an, =etro =anila, Philippines, bound anddes#ribed as follows#ralawred

Kn terreno &8ote +o. (D del plano de subdivision Psd(7!, parte del 8ote +o. 2(A, plano ori%inal Psu(20?

de la 3a#ienda de =aysilo', situado en el Darrio de Dalintawa5, =uni#ipio de Caloo#an, Provin#ia de RiBal.8inda por el +9. #on el 8ote +o. (" del plano de subdivisionE por el 49., #on el 8ote +o. (C del plano desubdivisionE por el 4/. #on el 8ote +o. 7E y por el +o. #on el 8ote +o. (A del plano de subdivision. > > >midiendo una e>tension superfi#ial de "/4 =68 /C3/C69+/4 R96+A Q C6+C/ =9R/4 CKA"RA"/4C/+ R96+A "9C6=9R/4 CKA"RA"/4 &2, $?', mas o menos. > > > la fe#ha de la medi#ion ori%inal $ al27 de 4eptiembre, 0 al 2- de /#tubre y -7(-$ de +oviembre de --- y la de la subdivision, 2 de "i#iembrede -20. &Consta la des#rip#ion de#ini#a en el Certifi#ado de ransferen#ia de itulo +o. --'

> > > >

is re%istered in a##ordan#e with the provisions of the 8and Re%istration A#t in the name of

6=98"A ). 4QJKC/E 89/+AR"/ ). 4QJKC/E 16"986+/ ). 4QJKC/E AKC9+A ). 4QJKC/E J/4916+A ).4QJKC/E A+6A ). 4QJKC/E 464A ). 4QJKC/, all of le%al a%e, sin%le, 1ilipinos, ( (

as owner thereof in fee simple, subje#t to su#h of the en#umbran#es mentioned in 4e#tion of said A#t asmay be subsistin%, and to the provisions of 4e#. 0, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court with respe#t to theinheritan#e left by the de#eased =oni#a )alauran and =ariano =esina. &1rom .C.. +o. -27'

Petitioners have been in open, #ontinuous, and uninterrupted possession of the subje#t land, by themselvesor throu%h their prede#essors(in(interest, sin#e -2!. Petitioners tra#ed ba#5 their title over the subje#tland to C +o. -- issued on 1ebruary 2!, -2! to =oni#a Ja#into )alauran. hereafter, C +o. --was repla#ed by C +o. $!$? under the names of Avelina Daello, 1elisa Daello, "olores Daello, 9duardo=esina, and 1austo )alauran &Avelina Daello, et al.'. C +o. $!$? was then repla#ed by C +o. -27under the names of the brothers =artin *. 4yju#o &=artin' and =anuel *. 4yju#o &=anuel' pursuant to a"eed of 4ale of Real 9state? dated 1ebruary 7, -0 e>e#uted by Avelina Daello, et al. in favor of the siblin%s=artin and =anuel. C +o. -27 was, in turn, repla#ed by C +o. 0$?!! issued on July -, -!0 in=artins name alone in a##ordan#e with a Partition A%reement7 e>e#uted by the brothers on June -!, -!0.Kpon =artins death, petitioners inherited the subje#t land, and followin% the e>trajudi#ial partition theye>e#uted on June 27, -7!, they re%istered said land in their names, as #o(owners, under C +o. (-$?

issued on =ar#h 2!, -$0. Petitioners and their prede#essors(in(interest have been payin% the real propertyta>es over the subje#t land sin#e -0.$

#ralawlawlibrary

Amon% the annotations on C +o. (-$? are two en#umbran#es #onstituted by petitioners andGor theirprede#essors(in(interest on the subje#t land, parti#ularly &-' a lease a%reement dated 4eptember 20,-!, in favor of =anufa#turers Dan5 and rust Company &=anufa#turers Dan5', over a portion of thesubje#t land, with the #ondition that the buildin%s whi#h the lessee had #onstru#ted thereon shall be#omethe property of the lessorGs after the e>piration of the lease a%reementE and &2' another lease a%reementdated "e#ember 2, -7-, in favor of a #ertain Chan 3en%, over the remainin% portion of the subje#tland.

#ralawlawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


4ometime in -0, however, petitioners learned that a bro5er named 9>e@uiel 1ajardo, throu%h a8etter-dated =ar#h , -0, offered for sale the subje#t land alon% with the improvements thereon to a#ertain 8uis /n%, %ivin% the followin% des#ription of the property and terms of the offer #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

AR9A 2,$?. s@uare meters8ot +o. 2(A(0(D(2A(D, P4" 7!, C2!?77$, Re%ister of

"eeds, Laloo5an City8o#ation Laloo5an City &beside 8R 4tation'/wner 1elisa ". Donifa#io

he terms of this offer are as followsPri#e P?,. per s@uare meterPaymenterms

?F downpaymentE

Petitioners found out that the purported owner of the subje#t land, respondent 1elisa ". Donifa#io&Donifa#io', was the sub(lessee of Lalayaan "evelopment Corporation, whi#h, in turn, was the sub(lessee of=anufa#turers Dan5, whi#h was the dire#t lessee of petitioners. Petitioners also learned that respondent

Donifa#io was able to re%ister the subje#t land in her name under C +o. 2!?77$, whi#h was issued on=ar#h 2, - by the Re%ister of "eeds of Caloo#an City. Respondent Donifa#ios #ertifi#ate of titledes#ribed the subje#t land as follows #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6t is hereby #ertified that #ertain land situated in the Caloo#an City, Philippines, bounded and des#ribed asfollows#ralawred

A par#el of land &8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D of the subd. plan, Psd(7!, 8.R.C. Re#. +o. ', situated in Dalintawa5,Caloo#an RiBal, Dounded of the 9., alon% line -(2 by 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((", on the 49., alon% line 2( by lot2(A(0(D(2(A((CE both of the subd. plan on the 4W., alon% line (0 by lot 2(A(0(D(2(A(!E and on the +W.,alon% line 0(- by 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((A of the subd. plan. De%innin% at a point mar5ed ;-< on plan, bein% +.7- de%. -79., -,2$?.$? m. from D88+ +o. -, Caloo#an then#eE 4. - de%. 0!W., 27.7 m. to point 2E 4 !0de%. W., -?.-? m. to point E + 2 de%. -2 W., 2!. m. to point 0E +. !? de%. 229., --!.7$ m. to pt.of be%innin%, #ontainin% an area of W/ 3/K4A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" 36RQ 16*9 4. =99R4 A+"36RQ 4. "9C6=99R4 &2,$?.'. All pts. referred to are indi#ated on the plan and are mar5ed on the

%round by old pts. Dearin%s trueE date of ori%inal survey, "ate of subd. survey, "e#. 2, -22,is re%istered in a##ordan#e with the provisions of the Property Re%istration "e#ree in the name of

19864A ". D/+61AC6/, of le%al a%e, 1ilipino, widow, (

as owner thereof in fee simple, subje#t to su#h of the en#umbran#es mentioned in 4e#tion 00 of said "e#reeas may be subsistin%I. > > >.--

ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

Respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ was issued pursuant to an /rder-2 dated /#tober $, -2 of the RCof Caloo#an City, Dran#h -2?, in 8.R.C. Case +o. C(2$$, entitled "n the Matter of Petition for Authorit toSegregate an Area of !;E8.: S-uare Meters from ot F<,A,9,4,F,A,<,4! PSD,G8; @PS>,F<9 of Masilostate and "ssuance of Separate Certificate of 'itle in the #ame of %elisa D. 4onifacio. RC(Dran#h -2?%ranted respondent Donifa#ios petition for se%re%ation be#ause#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Fro ()& &+-&n& *r&&n(&-, ()& Cour( /+n- ()a( +n Ca& No. 4557 /or ;&(+(+on /or Su3(+(u(+on

o/ Na&, +n ()& ()&n Cour( o/ F+r( In(an& o/ R+a', ran) 1, ()& ()&n ;r&+-+n Ju-& C&+'+auQo ;a'a, +u&- an Or-&r -a(&- ay 25, 1982 E!#IIT NK u3(+(u(+n ar+a -& 'aCon&*+on V+-a' a on& o/ ()& r&+(&r&- o%n&r o/ &&ra' *ar&' o/ 'an- /or+n ()& ay+'oE(a(& an- o&r&- 3y, aon o()&r, Or++na' C&r(+/+a(& o/ T+('& No. 994 o/ ()& R&+(&r o/D&&- o/ R+a' %+() aon o()&r E'&u(&r+a R+&ra on+/a+o (o ()& &?(&n( o/ 18 o/ 1=1<91000*&r &n( o/ ()& &n(+r& ay+'o E(a(&. On January 29, 1991, E'&u(&r+a R+&ra on+/a+o &?&u(&-+n /aor o/ F&'+a D. on+/a+o, )&r&+n *&(+(+on&r, a D&&- o/ A+n&n( E!#IIT K a+n+na'' )&r r+)( an- +n(&r&( o&r Lo( 2=A=4==2=A==A, ;-=708 an- Lo( 2=A=4==2=A==, ;-=708, 3o() 'o( 3&+n o&r&- 3y O.C.T. 994 o/ ()& R&+(&r o/ D&&- o/ R+a'. hat even prior to thee>e#ution of the "eed of Assi%nment but while ne%otiations with 9leuteria Rivera Donifa#io were %oin% on,

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


petitioner already re@uested the 8ands =ana%ement 4e#tor, "epartment of 9nvironment and +aturalResour#es, +ational Capital Re%ion, to prepare and issue the e#hni#al "es#riptions of the two lots subje#t of this petition. As re@uested by petitioner, 9lpidio . de 8ara, Chief, e#hni#al 4ervi#es 4e#tion, 8ands=ana%ement 4e#tor, "9+R(+CR, issued on June 2, -, two te#hni#al des#riptions &9:36D64 ;J< and ;L<'#overin% the two lots. After the issuan#e of the te#hni#al des#riptions, the petitioner re@uested )eodeti#9n%ineer Jose R. Rodri%ueB to prepare a s5et#h plan of the two lots subje#t of this petition. As re@uested,9n%r. Rodri%ueB prepared a s5et#h plan &9:36D6 ;8<' based from 9>hibits ;J< and ;L< whi#h was submitted

to the 8ands =ana%ement 4ervi#es, formerly Dureau of 8ands, for verifi#ation and #he#5in%. hat =r.Denjamin *. Ro@ue, Chief, opo%raphi# and 4pe#ial =ap 4e#tion, 8and =ana%ement 4ervi#es, formerlyDureau of 8ands, #ertified on July -, -2 that the s5et#h plan &9:36D6 ;8<' is a true and #orre#t plan of8ots 2(A(0(D(2(A((A and 2(A(0(D(2(A((D, both on Psd(7!. &9mphasis supplied.'

3en#e, RC(Dran#h -2? de#reed in the same /rder #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

W39R91/R9, in view of all the fore%oin%, the Court hereby )RA+4 the petition and orders the se%re%ationof 8ots 2(A(0(D(2(A((A and 2(A(0(D(2(A((D both on Psd(I7! from /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0of the Re%ister of "eeds of RiBal in favor of the herein petitioner.

Kpon the finality of this order and the payment of the pres#ribed fees if any and presentation of the#learan#es of said lots, ()& R&+(&r o/ D&&- o/ Ca'ooan C+(y + or-&r&- (o +u& a n&% (ran/&r&r(+/+a(& o/ (+('& +n ()& na& o/ )&r&+n *&(+(+on&r F&'+a D. on+/a+o o&r Lo( 2=A=4==2=A==A

an- 2=A=4==2=A== both on Psd(I7! of /.C.. 0 of the Re%ister of "eeds of RiBal.

-


1or une>plained reasons, the Re%ister of "eeds of Caloo#an City issued C +o. 2!?77$ to respondentDonifa#io on =ar#h 2, - even before RC(Dran#h -2? de#lared its /rder dated /#tober $, -2,%rantin% respondent Donifa#ios petition for se%re%ation, final and e>e#utory on April !, -.-0

#ralawlawlibrary

Civil Case #o. C566 e!ore'%C$ranch 126

o prote#t their ri%hts and interest over the subje#t land, petitioners lod%ed a Petition-? on July 2$, -0,do#5eted as Civil Case +o. C(!! before RC(Dran#h -2!, Laloo5an City, prayin% for the de#laration of nullityand #an#ellation of respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ over the subje#t land in view of petitionerssubsistin% C +o. (-$? over the very same property. 6n an /rder-! dated July 2$, -0, RC(Dran#h-2! deemed Civil Case +o. C(!! as a spe#ial #ivil a#tion for @uietin% of title and not an ordinary #ivil a#tionfor re#overy of ownership of land.

4ubse@uently, petitioners dis#overed that respondent Donifa#io sold the subje#t land in favor of respondent*4" Realty V "evelopment Corporation &*4" Realty', and that C +o. 2!?77$ in the name of respondentDonifa#io had already been #an#elled and repla#ed by C +o. 2$?--7 in the name of respondent *4"Realty on 4eptember -2, -0. As a result, petitioners filed on April 2?, -? an AmendedPetition,-$impleadin% respondent *4" Realty in Civil Case +o. C(!!.

Petitioners #ontended before RC(Dran#h -2! that althou%h C +o. (-$? of petitioners, on one hand,and C +o. 2!?77$ of respondent Donifa#io and C +o. 2$?- of respondent *4" Realty, on the otherhand, #ontained different te#hni#al des#riptions, said #ertifi#ates of title a#tually pertained to one and thesame property. A##ordin% to petitioners, respondents #ertifi#ates of title over the subje#t land #ould haveonly been obtained fraudulently %iven that #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

a' +o subse@uent survey of the 8ot #ould have been obtained, approved by

the "ire#tor of 8ands, and presented by the respondent as there e>istsan ori%inal isolated survey thereto for whi#h ransfer Certifi#ate of itle+o. -- #overin% the said land was issued as early as 2! 1ebruary-2! in the name of =oni#a Ja#into )alauran, married to =ariano=esina.

b' C +o. 2!?77$ was issued in the name of the respondent 1elisaDonifa#io on 2 =ar#h - before the issuan#e on ! April - by theDran#h Cler5 of Court &RC Dran#h -2? in 8.R.C. +o. C(2$$' of a

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Certifi#ate of 1inality of the aforesaid /rder dated $ /#tober -2.#' C +o. 2!?77$ was issued to 1elisa Donifa#io on 2 =ar#h - without

the Re%ister of "eeds of Laloo5an City re@uirin% the presentation of theowners dupli#ate #opy of /.C.. +o. 0.-

Respondent Donifa#io filed her Answer with Compulsory Counter#laim2 on /#tober --, -0. 4he denied5nowled%e of petitioners C +o. (-$? and maintained that the te#hni#al des#ription of the land#overed by petitioners C +o. (-$? is different from that in her C +o. 2!?77$. RespondentDonifa#io also averred that the te#hni#al des#ription of the land #overed by her C +o. 2!?77$ had beenverified and approved by the 8and =ana%ement 4ervi#es of the "epartment of 9nvironment and +aturalResour#es &"9+R'E that she a#@uired a valid title, C +o. 2!?77$, over the subje#t land pursuant to a #ourtorder in a land re%istration #aseE and that Civil Case +o. C(!! was a #ollateral atta#5 on the validity of herC +o. 2!?77$. Respondent *4" Realty, in its =anifestation2- filed on June -, -?, adopted respondentDonifa#ios aforementioned Answer.

6n the Pre(rial /rder22 dated 1ebruary 2, -? of RC(Dran#h -2!, the parties a%reed on the followin%stipulation of fa#ts and issues #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

46PK8A6/+ /1 1AC4

-. hat the petitioners are in possession of the lot in @uestionE and2. hat the respondent is never in possession of the lot in @uestion.

644K94

-. Whether or not the e#hni#al "es#ription is one and the same as appearin% on both titlesE and2. Whether or not the C +o. 2!?77$ of the respondent is a valid title.

hereafter, trial ensued.

Petitioners presented several do#umentary e>hibits2 and the testimonies of 8eonardo de )uBman 4yju#o,one of the petitionersE20 Renato . =alindo%, 8and Re%istration 9>aminer of the Caloo#an City Re%istry of"eedsE2? and 9n%ineer &9n%r.' 9lpidio . de 8ara &"e 8ara', Chief of e#hni#al 4ervi#es 4e#tion, 8and=ana%ement 4e#tor &8=4', "9+R.2! 6n its /rder27 dated +ovember 2, -?, RC(Dran#h -2! admitted allthe eviden#e presented by petitioners.

RC(Dran#h -2! summariBed petitioners eviden#e as follows#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

L&onar-o Syuo testified that he, to%ether with the other petitioners in this #ase, inherited the subje#tproperty from their late father, =artin 4yju#o, as shown in 9ntry +o. -?G(+o. -$? annotated in C+o. (-$? &9>hibit ;A<'. 3is father and his un#le, =anuel 4yju#o, in turn a#@uired the same from theDaello 1amily throu%h a "eed of Real 9state &9>hibit ;3<'. hereafter, =artin and =anuel e>e#uted a deed of partition &9>hibit ;6<' and their father was issued C +o. 0$?! &9>hibit ;)<' over the subje#t property. 3ehas been payin% the ta> de#laration on said property as eviden#ed by ta> re#eipts &9>hibits ;J< to ;J(-0<'.hey then leased the property to =anufa#turers Dan5 who was the one who built the improvements on thesame with stipulation that they will be#ome the owners of these improvements after the e>piration of thelease. hey also subleased the property to Lalayaan "evelopment Corporation &L"C, for short' andrespondent Donifa#io is a lessee of L"C. /ne of their tenants informed him that their property was bein%offered for sale and so he instituted measures to prote#t their interest. 3e also dis#overed the e>isten#e of

C +o. (2!?77$ &9>hibit ;C<' in the name of respondent Donifa#io whi#h he #laims to be void as there #anbe no se%re%ation of a property that was previously se%re%ated. Witness admits havin% e>e#uted a lease infavor of a #ertain John 3ay. 3e li5ewise admitted that the te#hni#al des#ription appearin% on the propertylease to John 3ay is not the same as the te#hni#al des#ription appearin% on 9>h. ;A.< 3e #laims that whenthey inherited the property, the te#hni#al des#ription was already re#orded thereon and it was the Re%istryof "eeds who pla#ed the same on the property.

R&na(o T. a'+n-o, an e>aminer of the Re%ister of "eeds of Laloo5an City, testified that prior to theissuan#e of C +o. 2!?77$, derivative do#uments were filed before their offi#e su#h as the Court /rderdated /#tober $, -2 in 8.R.C. Case +o. C(2$$E the Certifi#ate of 1inality to said /rder dated April !,-E the subdivision plan to 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((A and 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D also P4"(7! with Plan +o.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


4L(7?-(20(" and anne>ed to said do#uments were the te#hni#al des#ription for 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((A, P4"(7! and the te#hni#al des#ription for 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D also of P4"(7!. Dased on their re#ord,do#uments were Ire#eived re%ardin% the order of finality but there was no showin% that the ta> #learan#eIwas re%istered in their offi#e. 8i5ewise, based on the do#ument presented to them, the offi#e who issuedthe te#hni#al des#ription was from the "epartment of 9nvironment and +atural Resour#es, 8and=ana%ement 4e#tor, and one eodoro 9. =undo, Jr. is the Chief 4urvey "ivision of said offi#e.

E'*+-+o T. -& Lara, Chief of the e#hni#al 4ervi#es 4e#tion of the "epartment of A%rarian and +aturalResour#es, affirms to havin% #ertified to the te#hni#al des#ription Ion July , -, referred to as 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D of subdivision plan P4" 7!, based on a re@uest by 1elisa Donifa#io. 3e made the ;+ote4ubje#t for field survey< on 9>hibit ;=< so that the #orrespondin% te#hni#al des#ription be identified in theplan. Defore issuin% the te#hni#al des#ription for the subje#t lot, he #omplied with the pro#esses of havin%the te#hni#al des#ription resear#hed from their re#ords. 1rom their re#ord, he had not issued a te#hni#aldes#ription for the subje#t lot and they have no re#ord in their offi#e of su#h. he #orrespondin% D(7te#hni#al des#ription atta#hed to the letter re@uest #ame from the 8and =ana%ement Dureau, whi#h is thesurvey of the te#hni#al des#ription. At the time the re@uest was made until the time the #ertifi#ation wasissued, he did not meet 1elisa Donifa#io and said re@uest was filed in their offi#e and sent to the te#hni#alservi#es department.2$


Respondents, in turn, presented do#umentary e>hibits2 and #alled to the witness stand )eodeti# 9n%r.9velyn ). CelBo &CelBo' of the 8and =ana%ement 4ervi#es, "9+RE 1ernando ". =a#aro &=a#aro', 8andRe%istration 9>aminer of the Caloo#an City Re%ister of "eedsE- and Attorney &Atty.' Laulayao *. 1aylona,

"ire#tor and Corporate 4e#retary of respondent *4" Realty.

2#ralawlawlibrary

RC(Dran#h -2! summed(up respondents eviden#e as follows#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

E&'yn G. C&'o, a %eodeti# en%ineer from the 8and =ana%ement 4ervi#es, testified that she was orderedto #ondu#t a verifi#ation survey of 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D of P4" 7! by their Re%ional e#hni#al "ire#tor,Ro@uesa de Castro. he survey was #ondu#ted on Au%ust 2, -0 and its result Iwas #ontained in areport dated April -7, -? &9>hibit ;0<' whi#h she prepared and submitted. 4he and her team personallywent to the pla#e and found out that two &2' stores, namely, 1airy =art and en#o 1ootstep were thepresent o##upants of the lot. hey li5ewise informed the adjoinin% lots that they were %oin% to e>e#ute averifi#ation survey. DP= -- in Laloo5an Cadastre was the referen#e point to determine whether the lot wasreally in that pla#e. DP= -?, Laloo5an Cadastre were used as #ommon points to identify the te#hni#aldes#ription in 1elisas lot. 3owever, insofar as 9>hibit ;A< is #on#erned, the te#hni#al des#ription of saidproperty did not #ontain these #ommon points. he "9+R, +CR, has re#ord of all te#hni#al des#riptionsapproved and verified in said offi#e. 4he points out that only one &-' te#hni#al des#ription is allowed for a

parti#ular lot. 6n #ondu#tin% the survey verifi#ation, the #ertified C was furnished to them by 1elisaDonifa#io, to%ether with the relo#ation survey filed at the e#hni#al Referen#e 4e#tion. As to the adjoinin%lots, they se#ured the map of the =aysilo 9state Plan, under the relo#ation survey, they found out that thelot belon%ed to 1elisa Donifa#io and the te#hni#al des#ription is the same as the te#hni#al des#riptionsubmitted to her. 3er verifi#ation survey was approved as refle#ted in the ori%inal plan from the Dureau of8and *erifi#ation 4urvey &9>hibit ;7<'. 4he also stated that before the survey, she #ondu#ted a resear#h asto the ori%in of the te#hni#al des#ription from her offi#e and from the Dureau of 8ands in Dinondo but therewere no available re#ord. +either was there any re#ord about the ori%inal owner. When the #ertified #opy of C +o. 2!?77$ was %iven to her, there were no annotations of adverse #laims and so she did not anymorein@uire from the Re%istry of "eeds whether there were new annotations made thereon.

A((y. :au'ayao V. Fay'ona, a dire#tor and Corporate 4e#retary of *4" Realty Corporation, testified that areal estate bro5er offered for sale to *4" two &2' lots alon% Avenida and o##upied by 1airmart and Kniwide4ales, 6n#. Amon% the do#uments shown to him by the seller were the /rder of Jud%e )eronimo 4. =an%ay,of the Re%ional rial Court of Laloo5an City, Dran#h -2? &9>hibit ;2<', as well as the rans#ript of Case +o.

C(2$$ &9>h. ;<'. While he found the issuan#e of said /rder by the Court re%ular, he also re@uested for averifi#ation survey from the sellers %roup in order to ma5e sure that the lot appearin% in the te#hni#aldes#ription is also the lot a#tually bein% o##upied by the buildin%s already mentioned thereon. he a#tualverifi#ation survey was #ondu#ted by the "9+R throu%h 9n%r. 9. CelBo as eviden#ed by a report &9>h. ;0<'submitted for the purpose. =oreover, a verifi#ation plan &9>h. ;7<' approved by the "9+R was li5ewiseprepared in #onne#tion with the verifi#ation survey. 3e even personally went to the sala of Jud%e =an%ayand verified from the then "eputy Dran#h Cler5 of Court, the authenti#ity of the trans#ript that was %iven tohim whi#h the said Dran#h Cler5 of Court #onfirmed as havin% been issued by said #ourt. 3e did nothowever %o over the petition filed by 1elisa Donifa#io sin#e what was important was that the title was issuedin the land re%istration pro#eedin%s. 3e 5new that 1elisa was not in possession of the said property as it

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


was bein% o##upied by business establishments who were all not owners of the lot. As to payments of realtyta>es due on the property, he #laims that the title would not have been issued in the first pla#e Iand theta>es Iwould not Ihave been previously paid. 6nsofar as *4" is #on#erned, the #orporation was up(to(datein its payment of realty ta>es over their property. 3e stresses that there is no other owner of the lot in@uestion e>#ept 1elisa Donifa#io be#ause there was only one &-' lot with that te#hni#al des#ription. he saidapproved te#hni#al des#ription appearin% on 1elisas lot was issued by the "9+R whi#h is a#tually the#ustodian of the te#hni#al des#riptions of lands under the 8and Re%istration 4ystem, whi#h was #onfirmed by

=r. 9lpidio . de 8ara, #omplainants witness.


=a#aros testimony was not in#luded in the fore%oin% prX#is of respondents eviden#e by RC(Dran#h -2!.=a#aro affirmed before RC(Dran#h -2! the e>isten#e of respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$. =a#arofurther testified that the standard operatin% pro#edure at the Caloo#an City Re%istry of "eeds was to re@uirethe presentation of the #ertifi#ation statin% that the #ourt order dire#tin% issuan#e of the #ertifi#ate of titlehad already be#ome final and e>e#utory, before a#tually issuin% said #ertifi#ate of titleE but he was unable toe>plain how in this #ase respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ was issued on =ar#h 2, -, before theCertifi#ate of 1inality of the /rder dated /#tober $, -2 in Civil Case +o. C(2$$ was issued by RC(Dran#h-2? on April !, -.

/n January , -$, RC(Dran#h -2! rendered its "e#ision in Civil Case +o. C(!!, the dispositive portion of whi#h reads#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

W39R91/R9, in the li%ht of the fore%oin% #onsiderations, jud%ment is hereby rendered as follows

-' "ismissin% the petition of the petitionersE2' "e#larin% that the te#hni#al des#ription des#ribed in C +o. -$? by

the petitioners is not the same as the te#hni#al des#ription onIrespondent Donifa#ios title &C +o. 2!?77$, now C +o. 2$?-'E

' "e#larin% that C +o. 2!?77$ is a valid title and #onsiderin% thatrespondent *4"s title, (2$?-, repla#ed the former title, *4" ishereby de#lared the owner of the land in @uestion, that is, 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D of P4" 7!E

0' 1or petitioners to pay attorneys fees and the #osts of this suit.0

Comparin% the te#hni#al des#riptions in petitioners C +o. (-$? and respondents C +os. 2!?77$and 2$?-, RC(Dran#h -2! noted the bare differen#es in the land areas and lot numbers #ontainedtherein, and #on#luded that said te#hni#al des#riptions were not one and the same and that petitioners C+o. (-$? did not pertain to the same par#el of land des#ribed in respondent Donifa#ios C +o.2!?77$. RC(Dran#h -2! also pointed out that petitioners own witness, 9n%r. "e 8ara, testified that hisoffi#e, e#hni#al 4ervi#es 4e#tion of the "9+R, had not previously issued the te#hni#al des#ription appearin%on respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$. 9n%r. "e 8aras #ertifi#ation of the te#hni#al des#ription ofrespondent Donifa#ios property was issued for the first time on July , - only ;after #omplyin% with allthe le%al pro#esses ne#essary for the purpose, su#h as, amon% other thin%s, #ondu#tin% a resear#h fromtheir offi#e re#ords whi#h showed that no su#h te#hni#al des#ription on the subje#t property was previouslyissued and further statin% that the D(7 te#hni#al des#ription #ame from the 8and =ana%ement Dureauwhi#h was the survey of the te#hni#al des#ription.< ? RC(Dran#h -2! further #ited the testimony of 9n%r.CelBo of 8and =ana%ement 4ervi#es who #ondu#ted the verifi#ation survey durin% whi#h it was revealed that ;while #ommon points were used in identifyin% the te#hni#al des#ription in C +o. 2!?77$, no su#h

#ommon points e>isted in the te#hni#al des#ription appearin% on petitionersI title.< RC(Dran#h -2! saw noreason to doubt the testimonies of 9n%rs. "e 8ara and CelBo #onsistent with the rule that %overnmentoffi#ials are presumed to perform their fun#tions with re%ularity and stron% eviden#e is ne#essary to rebutthis presumption.

RC(Dran#h -2! also #ate%ori#ally upheld the validity of respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ as it wasissued pursuant to the /rder dated /#tober $, -2 of the Caloo#an City RC(Dran#h -2?. RC(Dran#h -2!said that it #ould not @uestion the order of a #o(e@ual #ourt and brushed aside petitioners #laim of#ontinuous possession of the subje#t property be#ause su#h fa#t alone #ould not defeat respondents titleover said property re%istered under the orrens system. Absent any showin% by #lear and #onvin#in% proofthat C +o. 2!?77$ of respondent Donifa#io, now C +o. 2$?- of respondent *4" Realty, was

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


irre%ularly issued, RC(Dran#h -2! a##orded said titles the #on#lusive presumption of validity.

CA7.'. C-. #o. 89999 e!ore theCourt o! Appeals

Petitioners filed an appeal! before the Court of Appeals, do#5eted as CA().R. C*. +o. ?7777, with thefollowin% sole assi%nment of error #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

39 8/W9R C/KR 9RR9" 6+ +/ A++K8I86+) IR94P/+"9+4 6894 W36C3 /*9R8AP 39 9:646+)689 6+ 39 +A=94 /1 39 P966/+9R4.7

Petitioners asserted that the te#hni#al des#ription of the land in their C +o. (-$? and that inrespondents C +os. 2!?77$ and 2$?- pertain to one and the same land. Petitioners ar%ue that RC(Dran#h -2! failed to appre#iate the probative value of 9n%r. "e 8aras testimony on this parti#ular issue.A##ordin% to petitioners, 9n%r. "e 8aras #ertifi#ation dated July , - on the #orre#tness of the te#hni#aldes#ription of 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D, P4" 7!, was based merely on the ;D(7 survey< atta#hed torespondent Donifa#ios letter(re@uest, hen#e, 9n%r. "e 8aras #ertifi#ation in#luded a notation ;Isubje#t forfield survey< sin#e he did not 5now the lo#ation of the land referred to by the te#hni#al des#ription. he ;D(7 survey< or the subdivision plan of P4" 7! was neither presented before RC(Dran#h -2! in this #ase norbefore RC(Dran#h -2? in Civil Case +o. C(2$$ &respondent Donifa#ios Petition for 4e%re%ation$'E thus,petitioners #ontended that there was no eviden#e as to ;when the survey was made, under whose name the

survey was made, and as to whether or not the said survey had the re@uisite %overnment approval.<

Petitioners added that it was in#orre#t for RC(Dran#h -2! to #on#lude that 9n%r. "e 8aras offi#e had neverissued any te#hni#al des#ription pertainin% to the subje#t land prior to July , -, and what 9n%r. "e 8araa#tually said was that there was no re#ord in his offi#e of the te#hni#al des#ription of the subje#t land asappearin% in petitioners C +o. (-$?. Petitioners also maintained that the 4urvey /rder dated Au%ust22, -0 and the *erifi#ation Plan of 8ot 2(A(0(D(2(A((D, P4" 7!, dated April 2$, -? had no probativevalue as &-' said 4urvey /rder was not authenti#atedE &2' said 4urvey /rder was in#omplete and un#ertainas it did not spe#ify the lot to be surveyed, its lo#ation, and its te#hni#al des#riptionE and &' the verifi#ationsurvey was #ondu#ted only on Au%ust 2, -0, after respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ was issued on=ar#h 2, -, #onse@uently, said survey #ould not validate the irre%ular issuan#e of C +o. 2!?77$.

Additionally, petitioners alle%ed the followin% irre%ularities in the issuan#e of respondent Donifa#ios C +o.2!?77$

&-' Civil Case +o. C(2$$, respondent Donifa#ios Petition for4e%re%ation, is rooted in a "eed of Assi%nment of the subje#t landpurportedly e>e#uted on January 2, -- by 9leuteria RiveraDonifa#io in favor of respondent Donifa#io, but said "eed merely#opied the te#hni#al des#ription of the land issued and #ertified onJune -, - upon the re@uest of respondent Donifa#io herself.

&2' Respondent Donifa#io merely atta#hed to her Petition for 4e%re%ationin Civil Case +o. C(2$$ a s5et#h plan of the subje#t land, not anapproved survey or subdivision plan.

&' Respondent Donifa#io stated in her Petition for 4e%re%ation in CivilCase +o. C(2$$ that her and her transferors possession of the

subje#t land was ;open, publi#, and notorious without any 5nown#laimantsI,< 0 but she later admitted that she had never been inpossession of the said property.

&0' Respondent Donifa#io atta#hed to her Petition for 4e%re%ation a realproperty ta> #omputation sheet for the subje#t property whi#h was inthe name of =artin *. 4yju#o, who was petitioners prede#essor(in(interest.0-

&?' Respondent Donifa#io obtained C +o. 2!?77$ over the subje#t

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


property on =ar#h 2, - whereas the order authoriBin% theissuan#e of said #ertifi#ate of title be#ame final and e>e#utory onlyon April !, -.

&!' he Re%ister of "eeds issued C +o. 2!?77$ to respondentDonifa#io without re@uirin% the presentation of /ri%inal Certifi#ate of

itle &/C' +o. 0, whi#h #overed the vast land from when#erespondent Donifa#ios property was purportedly se%re%ated, and there@uisite ta> #learan#e in respondent Donifa#ios name.

Respondents asseverated that the te#hni#al des#riptions #ontained in their C +os. 2!?77$ and 2$?-, onone hand, and in petitioners C +o. (-$?, on the other, do not pertain to the same landE thatrespondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$ was issued pursuant to a valid #ourt order by RC(Dran#h -2? inCivil Case +o. C(2$$E and that petitioners Civil Case +o. C(!! before RC(Dran#h -2! was a #ollateralatta#5 on the validity of respondents titles.

6n its "e#ision dated 1ebruary 2, 2-, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal and affirmed intoto the "e#ision dated January , -$ of RC(Dran#h -2! in Civil Case +o. C(!!.

Aside from essentially adoptin% the ratio#ination in the appealed jud%ment of RC(Dran#h -2!, the Court ofAppeals also espoused respondents ar%ument that Civil Case +o. C(!!, instituted by petitioners beforeRC(Dran#h -2!, was a #ollateral atta#5 on the validity of respondent Donifa#ios C +o. 2!?77$, inviolation of 4e#tion 0$ of Presidential "e#ree +o. -?2, otherwise 5nown as the Property Re%istration"e#ree. he appellate #ourt, #omparin% the parties respe#tive #ertifi#ates of title, further ruled that#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

IA #areful s#rutiny of C +os. -$? and 2!?77$ revealed relevant similarities. Doth Cs ori%inate from/C +o. 0 pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0??, Re#ord +o. 002. C +o. -$? was first ori%inallyre%istered on =ay , --7, in #ontrast to Donifa#ios title &C +o. 2!?77$' whi#h was Ire%istered in --2.

6n view of this, we @uote the rulin% enun#iated by the #ourt in =etropolitan Waterwor5s 4ewera%e 4ystem v.Court of Appeals and reiterated in the #ases of 3eirs of 8uis J. )onBa%a v. Court of Appeals and =as#ariasv. Court of Appeals.

;Where two #ertifi#ates &of title' purport to in#lude the same land, the earlier in date prevails. > > >. 6nsu##essive re%istrations, where more than one #ertifi#ate is issued in respe#t of a parti#ular estate orinterest in land, the person #laimin% under the prior #ertifi#ate is entitled to the estate or interestE and theperson is deemed to hold under the prior #ertifi#ate who is the holder of, or whose #laim is derived dire#tlyor indire#tly from the person who was the holder of the earliest #ertifi#ate issued in respe#t thereof.<

3en#e, in point of priority in issuan#e, the title of Donifa#io prevails over that of the Ipetitioners. 4in#e, theland in @uestion has already been re%istered under /C 0, in the year --2, the subse@uent re%istrationof the same land on =ay , --7 is null and void.02&Citations omitted.'

he Court of Appeals lastly pointed out that petitioners possession of the subje#t land #annot defeatrespondent Donifa#ios title thereto #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

While we re#o%niBe the fa#t that the Ipetitioners have been in 00 years of #ontinuous possession, still, weshould not lose si%ht of the fa#t that Irespondent Donifa#io is an owner of an earlier issued title. he

impres#riptibility of Donifa#ios title #annot be defeated by the Ipetitioners #ontinuous possession of the@uestioned lot. o hold otherwise, the effi#a#y of the #on#lusiveness of the #ertifi#ate of title, whi#h theorrens 4ystem see5s to insure, would be futile and nu%atory.0 &Citations omitted.'

he Court of Appeals #on#luded that sin#e respondent Donifa#io is the owner of the subje#t land, validlyre%istered in her name, she is within her ri%hts in sellin% said property to respondent *4" Realty, ma5in%the latters C +o. 2$?- also valid.

3en#e, the present petition for review.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Petitioners reiterate their position that their C +o. (-$? and respondents C +os. 2!?77$ and2$?- pertain to one and the same land, and that the latter titles have been fraudulently obtained.Petitioners also aver that their undisturbed possession of the subje#t property %ives them a #ontinuin% ri%htto see5 the aid of a #ourt to as#ertain and determine the nature and effe#t of respondents adverse #laim onthe subje#t land.

6n addition, petitioners pray for this Court to ta5e judi#ial noti#e of supervenin% events relative to the

indis#riminate issuan#e or proliferation of fa5e titles derived from /C +o. 0 #overin% the =aysilo 9state.hey point out that the "epartment of Justi#e &"/J' and the 4enate Committees on Justi#e and 3umanRi%hts, Krban Plannin%, and 3ousin% and Resettlement, already #ondu#ted separate investi%ations of thisserious land title anomaly and had submitted their respe#tive reports on the matter. he "/J CommitteeReport dated Au%ust 2$, -7 and 4enate Committee Report +o. -- dated =ay 2?, -$ validated /C+o. 0 re%istered on =ay , --7E de#lared /C +o. 0 re%istered on April -, --7 as non(e>istentE andre#ommended the #an#ellation of all titles derived from /C +o. 0 re%istered on April -, --7.Petitioners, thus, ar%ue that respondent Donifa#ios title, whi#h ori%inated from /C +o. 0 re%istered in--2, is null and void as the only authenti# /C +o. 0 is the one issued pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0??ori%inally re%istered on =ay , --7.

6n their Comment, respondents stand by the propriety of the "e#ision dated 1ebruary 2, 2- of the Courtof Appeals in CA().R. C*. +o. ?7777 and the "e#ision dated January , -$ of RC(Dran#h -2! in CivilCase +o. C(!!. Respondents also e>hort this Court not to ta5e judi#ial noti#e of the "/J and 4enate#ommittee reports be#ause those are irrelevant to the present #ase as the true date of re%istration of /C

+o. 0 has never been an issue herein. At any rate, respondents insinuate that there was a mista5e in theindi#ation in the title of respondent Donifa#io that it ori%inated from /C +o. 0 re%istered in --2,#laimin% that the same ;must have been I#aused by either a #leri#al error or Y a mental lapse.<

R$LING


)n the propriety o! petitionersaction to uiet title over the su:ect land.

he Court, at the outset, finds untenable the #ontention that the a#tion instituted by petitioners is aprohibited #ollateral atta#5 on the #ertifi#ate of title of respondents over the subje#t land.

4e#tion 0$ of Presidential "e#ree +o. -?200 states#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

4e#. 0$. Certificate not subHect to collateral attac). ( A #ertifi#ate of title shall not be subje#t to #ollateralatta#5. 6t #annot be altered, modified, or #an#eled e>#ept in a dire#t pro#eedin% in a##ordan#e with law.

o determine whether an atta#5 on a #ertifi#ate of title is dire#t or indire#t, the relevan#e of the obje#t of thea#tion instituted and the relief sou%ht therein must be e>amined. he rule was e>plained in Catores v. Afidchao0? as follows#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

When is an a#tion an atta#5 on a titleH 6t is when the obje#t of the a#tion or pro#eedin% is to nullifythe title, and thus #hallen%e the jud%ment pursuant to whi#h the title was de#reed. he atta#5 is dire#twhen the obje#t of an a#tion or pro#eedin% is to annul or set aside su#h jud%ment, or enjoin itsenfor#ement. /n the other hand, the atta#5 is indire#t or #ollateral when, in an a#tion to obtain a

different relief, an atta#5 on the jud%ment is nevertheless made as an in#ident thereof. &9mphasissupplied, #itation omitted.'

he instituted a#tion in this #ase is #learly a dire#t atta#5 on a #ertifi#ate of title to real property.

6n their #omplaint for @uietin% of title, petitioners spe#ifi#ally pray for the de#laration of nullity andGor#an#ellation of respondents C +os. 2!?77$ and 2$?- over the subje#t land. he relief sou%ht bypetitioners is #ertainly feasible sin#e the obje#tive of an a#tion to @uiet title, as provided under Arti#le 07! of the Civil Code of the Philippines, is pre#isely to @uiet, remove, invalidate, annul, andGor nullify ;a #loud ontitle to real property or any interest therein by reason of any instrument, re#ord, #laim, en#umbran#e or

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


pro#eedin% whi#h is apparently valid or effe#tive but is in truth and in fa#t invalid, ineffe#tive, voidable, orunenfor#eable, and may be prejudi#ial to said title.<

he Court also finds bereft of merit the #ontentions that petitioners a#tion to @uiet title had alreadypres#ribed andGor that the titles of respondents over the subje#t land have already be#ome in#ontrovertibleand indefeasible based on 4e#tion 2 of Presidential "e#ree +o. -?2.

4e#tion 2 of Presidential "e#ree +o. -?2 states#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

4e#tion 2. Revie( of decree of registrationI "nnocent purchaser for value. ( he de#ree of re%istration shallnot be reopened or revised by reason of absen#e, minority, or other disability of any person adverselyaffe#ted thereby, nor by any pro#eedin% in any #ourt for reversin% jud%ments, subje#t, however, to the ri%htof any person, in#ludin% the %overnment and the bran#hes thereof, deprived of land or of any estate orinterest therein by su#h adjudi#ation or #onfirmation of title obtained by a#tual fraud, to file in the properCourt of 1irst 6nstan#e a petition for reopenin% and review of the de#ree of re%istration no( 'a(&r ()an on&y&ar /ro an- a/(&r ()& -a(& o/ ()& &n(ry o/ u) -&r&& o/ r&+(ra(+on, but in no #ase shall su#hpetition be entertained by the #ourt where an inno#ent pur#haser for value has a#@uired the land or aninterest therein, whose ri%hts may be prejudi#ed. Whenever the phrase ;inno#ent pur#haser for value< or ane@uivalent phrase o##urs in this "e#ree, it shall be deemed to in#lude an inno#ent lessee, mort%a%ee, orother en#umbran#er for value.

$*on ()& &?*+ra(+on o/ a+- *&r+o- o/ on& y&ar, ()& -&r&& o/ r&+(ra(+on an- ()& &r(+/+a(& o/

(+('& +u&- )a'' 3&o& +non(ro&r(+3'&. Any person a%%rieved by su#h de#ree of re%istration in any#ase may pursue his remedy by a#tion for dama%es a%ainst the appli#ant or any other persons responsiblefor the fraud. &9mphases added.'

he above(@uoted rule has well(settled e>#eptions.

6t is an established do#trine in land ownership disputes that the filin% of an a#tion to @uiet title isimpres#riptible if the disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. /ne who is in a#tualpossession of a pie#e of land #laimin% to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or histitle is atta#5ed before ta5in% steps to vindi#ate his ri%ht, the reason for the rule bein% that his undisturbedpossession %ives him a #ontinuin% ri%ht to see5 the aid of a #ourt of e@uity to as#ertain and determine thenature of the adverse #laim of a third party and its effe#t on his own title, whi#h ri%ht #an be #laimed only byone who is in possession.0!

#ralawlawlibrary

6n this #ase, petitioners have duly established durin% the trial that they andGor their prede#essors(in(interesthave been in uninterrupted possession of the subje#t land sin#e -2! and that it was only in -0 whenthey found out that respondent Donifa#io was able to re%ister the said property in her name in another title.6t was also only in -? when petitioners learned that respondent Donifa#io was able to sell and transfer hertitle over the subje#t land in favor of respondent *4" Realty.

=oreover, the rule on the in#ontrovertibility or indefeasibility of title has no appli#ation in this #ase %iven thefa#t that the #ontendin% parties #laim ownership over the subje#t land based on their respe#tive #ertifi#atesof title thereon whi#h ori%inated from different sour#es. Certainly, there #annot be two or even several#ertifi#ates of title on the same par#el of real property be#ause ;a land re%istration #ourt has no jurisdi#tionto order the re%istration of land already de#reed in the name of another in an earlier land re%istration #ase<and ;a se#ond de#ree for the same land would be null and void, sin#e the prin#iple behind ori%inalre%istration is to re%ister a par#el of land only on#e.< 07 he indefeasibility of a title under the orrens system#ould be #laimed only if a previous valid title to the same par#el of land does not e>ist. Where the issuan#eof the title was attended by fraud, the same #annot vest in the titled owner any valid le%al title to the land

#overed by itE and the person in whose name the title was issued #annot transmit the same, for he has notrue title thereto. his rulin% is a mere affirmation of the re#o%niBed prin#iple that a #ertifi#ate is not#on#lusive eviden#e of title if it is shown that the same land had already been re%istered and that an earlier#ertifi#ate for the same land is in e>isten#e.0$

#ralawlawlibrary

A##ordin%ly, petitioners filin% of an a#tion to @uiet title over the subje#t land is in order.

)n the propriety o! remandin* this

case !or !urther proceedin*s e!ore theCourt o! Appeals.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n VSD Realt J Development Corporation v. >ni(ide Sales! "nc.!0 this Court remanded the #ase before theCourt of Appeals, #itin% Manoto) Realt! "nc. v. C' Realt Development Corporation!? and held#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

In ()& a+n, r&*on-&n( a&''o on(&n- ()a( ()& Cour( &rr&- +n no( -&'ar+n *&(+(+on&r VSDTCT No. T=2<512 a nu'' an- o+-, on+-&r+n ()a( +( + -&r+&- /ro F&'+a on+/a+o TCT No.285777T=125, %)+), +n (urn, + -&r+&- /ro ()& /a'& an- /+(+(+ou OCT No. 994 -a(&- A*r+'

19, 1917. T)& r&or- o/ ()+ a&, )o%&&r, )o% ()a( F&'+a on+/a+o TCT No. 285777T=125 an- VSD TCT No. T=2<512 ar& -&r+&- /ro ()& '&+(+a(& OCT No. 994 r&+(&r&- on ay, 1917, %)+) -a(& )a 3&&n )&'- a ()& orr&( -a(& o/ r&+(ra(+on o/ ()& a+- OCT +n &anoto;'ealty, nc. v. CL% 'ealty (evelopment Corporation. n her &otion !or Leave and %ime to File

Judicial A!!idavit o! &r. Felino Corte and Supplemental &otion !or 'econsideration, %)+) ()&Cour( ran(&-, r&*on-&n( a&''o on(&n- ()a( )& )a a--+(+ona' &+-&n& )o%+n ()a( ()&o*y o/ F&'+a on+/a+o TCT No. 285777T=125 ()a( %a *r&&n(&- (o ()& R&+(&r o/ D&&- o/ Ca'ooan, /or ()& *ur*o& o/ ()& +uan& o/ *&(+(+on&r VSD TCT No. T=2<512, %a (a*&r&-%+() (o /rau-u'&n('y r&/'&( ()a( +( %a -&r+&- /ro ()& '&+(+a(& an- au()&n(+ OCT No. 994-a(&- ay , 1917. 6t is alle%ed that the ori%inal mi#rofilm #opy retained by the 8RA shows that 1elisaDonifa#ios C +o. 2!?777G(-2? did not ori%inate from the le%itimate and authenti# /C +o. 0 dated=ay , --7, but was instead derived from /C +o. 0 dated April -, --2. a&''o +(&- &anoto;

'ealty, nc. v. CL% 'ealty (evelopment Corporation, %)+) a''o%&- ()& *r&&n(a(+on o/ &+-&n&3&/or& a S*&+a' D+++on o/ ()& Cour( o/ A**&a' (o a&r(a+n %)+) o/ ()& on/'+(+n 'a+ o/(+('& )ou'- *r&a+', &&n ()ou) ()& a& )a- a'r&a-y 3&&n -&+-&-> an- ()& a--+(+ona' &+-&n&

%a *r&&n(&- +n onn&(+on %+() a o(+on /or r&on+-&ra(+on o/ ()+ Cour( -&++on.

T)& Cour( no(& ()a( +n &anoto; 'ealty, nc. v. CL% 'ealty (evelopment Corporation, ()& Cour(*ronoun&- ()a( ()&r& + on'y on& OCT No. 994, %)+) + orr&('y r&+(&r&- on ay , 1917, an-()a( any (+('& ()a( (ra& +( our& (o OCT No. 994 -a(&- A*r+' 17, 1917 + o+-, /or u) o()&r(+('& + +n&?+(&n(.

T)& Cour( r&on+& ()& +*or(an& o/ *ro(&(+n ()& oun(ry Torr&n y(& /ro /a& 'an-(+('& an- -&&-. Con+-&r+n ()a( ()&r& + an +u& on ()& a'+-+(y o/ ()& (+('& o/ *&(+(+on&r VSD,%)+) (+('& + a''&&- (o 3& (ra&a3'& (o OCT No. 994 r&+(&r&- on A*r+' 19, 1917, %)+) o()&r(+('& %a )&'- (o 3& +n&?+(&n( +n&anoto; 'ealty, nc. v. CL% 'ealty (evelopment Corporation, +n()& +n(&r&( o/ u(+&, an- (o a/&uar- ()& orr&( (+('+n o/ *ro*&r(+&, a r&an- + *ro*&r (o-&(&r+n& %)+) o/ ()& *ar(+& -&r+&- a'+- (+('& /ro ()& '&+(+a(& OCT No. 994 r&+(&r&- onay , 1917. S+n& ()+ Cour( + no( a (r+&r o/ /a( anno( a*a+(a(&- (o a**r&+a(& &+-&n& o/()& /+r( +n(an&, ()& Cour( ay r&an- ()+ a& (o ()& Cour( o/ A**&a' /or /ur()&r*ro&&-+n, as it has been similarly tas5ed in Manoto) Realt! "nc. v. C' Realt DevelopmentCorporation on these bases#ralawred

Knder 4e#tion ! of Rule 0!, whi#h is appli#able to ori%inal #ases for certiorari!the Court may, wheneverne#essary to resolve fa#tual issues, dele%ate the re#eption of the eviden#e on su#h issues to any of itsmembers or to an appropriate #ourt, a%en#y or offi#e. he dele%ate need not be the body that rendered theassailed de#ision.

he Court of Appeals %enerally has the authority to review findin%s of fa#t. 6ts #on#lusions as to findin%s offa#t are %enerally a##orded %reat respe#t by this Court. 6t is a body that is fully #apa#itated and has asurfeit of e>perien#e in appre#iatin% fa#tual matters, in#ludin% do#umentary eviden#e.

6n fa#t, the Court had a#tually resorted to referrin% a fa#tual matter pendin% before it to the Court ofAppeals. 6n Republic v. Court of Appeals! this Court #ommissioned the former hirteenth "ivision of theCourt of Appeals to hear and re#eive eviden#e on the #ontroversy, more parti#ularly to determine ;the a#tual

area re#laimed by the Republi# Real 9state Corporation, and the areas of the Cultural Center Comple> whi#hare Uopen spa#es andGor Uareas reserved for #ertain purposes, determinin% in the pro#ess the validity ofsu#h postulates and the respe#tive measurements of the areas referred to.< he Court of Appeals thereinre#eived the eviden#e of the parties and rendered a ;Commissioners Report< shortly thereafter. hus,resort to the Court of Appeals is not a deviant pro#edure.

he provisions of Rule 2 should also be #onsidered as %overnin% the %rant of authority to the Court ofAppeals to re#eive eviden#e in the present #ase. Knder 4e#tion 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, a #ourtmay, motu proprio, dire#t a referen#e to a #ommissioner when a @uestion of fa#t, other than upon thepleadin%s, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any sta%e of a #ase, or for #arryin% a jud%ment or order intoeffe#t. he order of referen#e #an be limited e>#lusively to re#eive and report eviden#e only, and the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


#ommissioner may li5ewise rule upon the admissibility of eviden#e. he #ommissioner is li5ewise mandatedto submit a report in writin% to the #ourt upon the matters submitted to him by the order of referen#e.6n Republic , the #ommissioners report formed the basis of the final adjudi#ation by the Court on the matter.he same result #an obtain herein.< ?- &9mphases added.'

he Court notes, however, that several matters have already transpired durin% the penden#y of this #asethat bear #onsiderable relation in the resolution of the main @uestion of whi#h of the respe#tive titles of the

parties over the subje#t land is valid.

1irstly, the Court observes that the #ertifi#ation as indi#ated in petitioners title, whi#h the latter submitteddurin% the trial, shows that it ori%inated from /C +o. 0 re%istered on =ay , --7, thus #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6t is further #ertified that said land was ori%inally re%istered on the r- -ay o/ ay, +n ()& y&ar n+n&(&&n)un-r&- an- &&n(&&n, in the Re%istration Doo5 of the /ffi#e of the Re%ister of "eeds of RiBal, *olume A(, pa%e 22!, as /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0, pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0??, issued in 8.R.C. ZZZRe#ord +o. 002.

his #ertifi#ate is a transfer from ransfer Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0$?!G(2?, whi#h is #an#elled by virtuehereof in so far as the above(des#ribed land is #on#erned.?2 &9mphasis added.'

/n the other hand, the title of respondent Donifa#io, the one presented durin% the trial, shows that it

li5ewise ori%inated from /C +o. 0, but su#h mother title states only the day and the year of its ori%inalre%istration as follows#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6t is further #ertified that said land was ori%inally re%istered on the 19() -ay o/ , +n ()& y&ar n+n&(&&n)un-r&- an- (%&'&, in the Re%istration Doo5 of the /ffi#e of the Re%ister of "eeds of =anila, *olume ZZZ,Pa%e ZZZ, as /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0, pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0?? issued in 8.R.C. ZZZ, Re#ord+o. 002, in the name of ZZZ.

his #ertifi#ate is a transfer from /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0, whi#h is #an#elled by virtue hereof inso far as the above(des#ribed land is #on#erned.? &9mphasis added.'

Curiously, the title of respondent *4" Realty is supposed to be a dire#t transfer from the title of respondentDonifa#io, yet, the #ertifi#ation as to the ori%inal re%istration of its mother title /C +o. 0 provides there%istration date of ay , 1917, thus#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6 64 1KR39R C9R6169" that said land was ori%inally re%istered on the r- day of ay, in theyear n+n&(&&n )un-r&- an- &&n(&&n in the Re%istration Doo5 of the /ffi#e of the Re%ister of "eeds ofRiBal, *olume A((A, Pa%e 22!, as /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle +o. 0, pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0?? issuedin 8.R.C. ZZZ Re#ord +o. 002 in the name of ZZZ.

T)+ &r(+/+a(& + a (ran/&r /ro Tran/&r C&r(+/+a(& o/ T+('& No. 28577<T=125%)+) +an&''&- 3y +r(u& )&r&o/ +n o /ar a ()& a3o&=-&r+3&- 'an- + on&rn&-.

9ntered at the City of Laloo5an,Philippines, on the -2th dayof 4eptember in the year nineteenhundred and ninety(four at -2

p.m.?0 &9mphases added.'

1urthermore, a #ertified true #opy of respondent Donifa#ios title, whi#h petitioners have obtained just priorto the filin% of the Petition at bar and atta#hed to their Reply dated "e#ember -2, 2-, now shows that thedate of the ori%inal re%istration of respondent Donifa#ios mother title ( /C +o. 0 ( has #han%ed from the-th day of an unspe#ified month?? in --2 to =ay , --7, and the pla#e of re%istration from =anila toRiBal. Aside from these #han%es, the portions that were left blan5 in the earlier #opy of respondentDonifa#ios title have already been filled(up in the latest #opy of the same, thus #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6 64 1KR39R C9R6169" that said land was ori%inally re%istered on the r- -ay o/ ay, +n ()& y&arn+n&(&&n )un-r&- an- &&n(&&n in the Re%istration Doo5 of the /ffi#e of the Re%ister of "eeds of R+a',*olume A=9=A, Pa%e 228, as Or++na' C&r(+/+a(& o/ T+('& No. 994, pursuant to "e#ree +o. !0?? issuedin 8.R.C. ZZZ Re#ord +o. 002 in the name of ZZZ.

T)+ &r(+/+a(& + a (ran/&r /ro Or++na' C&r(+/+a(& o/ T+('& No. 994 %)+) + an&''&- 3y +r(u&)&r&o/ +n o /ar a ()& a3o&=-&r+3&- 'an- + on&rn&-.

9ntered at Caloo#an City, Philippines,on the 2th day of =ar#h in the yearnineteen hundred and ninety(three at2 a.m.?!&9mphases added.'

4e#ondly, the Court notes that the Republi#, represented by the /ffi#e of the 4oli#itor )eneral &/4)', filedherein a =otion for 6ntervention with atta#hed Petition(in(6ntervention, pursuant to the re#ommendation inthe Report dated =ay 2?, -$ of the 4enate Committees on Justi#e, 3uman Ri%hts, 3ousin%, and KrbanPlannin% and Resettlement, that the /4) be mandated ;to intervene in land disputes before the #ourt, on#ases whether pertainin% to %overnment or private lands as the /4) may determine, involvin% fa5e titles,dupli#ation of titles or similar anomalies, to %uide the #ourt on the position of the %overnment and to involvethe #on#erned %overnment entities parti#ularly the 8and Re%istration Authority in a #on#erted effort to

prote#t the inte%rity of the orrens system of land title re%istration.< ?7

he motion was %ranted and thePetition of the Republi# was admitted in the Courts Resolution?$ dated "e#ember $, 20.

he /4) manifests, amon% others, that petitioners C +o. (-$?, in relian#e to the #on#lusions of the"/J and 4enate #ommittees, is the valid #ertifi#ate of title #overin% the subje#t land as it #ould be tra#edba#5 to the authenti# /C +o. 0 re%istered on =ay , --7E #onversely, respondents C +os. 2!?77$and 2$?- are null and void as these ori%inated from the spurious /C +o. 0 re%istered in --2.

Respondents filed their Comment Ito the Republi#s intervention? on June -, 2?. 6nterestin%ly,respondents now #ontend that their C +os. 2!?77$ and 2$?- are derivatives of OCT No. 994r&+(&r&- on A*r+' 19, 1917, hen#e, they #apitaliBe on the rulin%s of this Court in Metropolitan&ater(or)s and Se(erage Sstems @M&SS v. Court of Appeals! and $eirs of uis 5. 3on*aga v. Court of Appeals!- that those titles derived from /C +o. 0 re%istered on April -, --7 prevail over those titlesderived from /C +o. 0 re%istered on =ay , --7 #onsiderin% the priority of the date of re%istration.

hirdly, the Court reiterates that the validity of /C +o. 0 re%istered on =ay , --7, and the non(e>isten#e of a purported /C +o. 0 re%istered on April -, --7, have already been e>haustively passedupon and settled with finality in the Resolution1s2 dated "e#ember -0, 27 and =ar#h -, 2 in Manoto) Realt! "nc. v. C' Realt Development Corporation.!2

#ralawlawlibrary

6n Angeles v. 'he Secretar of 5ustice!! this Court reiterated its pronoun#ements in Manoto) Realt! "nc. v.C' Realt Development Corporation!0 that the true and valid /C +o. 0 was re%istered on =ay , --7,not on April -, --7, and that any title that tra#es its sour#e to the latter date is deemed void andine>istent. T)& Cour( %a a'o &?*'++( ()a( ()& a& o/ &WSS v. Court o! Appeals an- 7ona*a v.Court o! Appeals )a- a'r&a-y 3&&n r&n-&r&- !unctus o!!icio, ()u, ()&& a& an no 'on&r 3&+(&- a *r&&-&n(. he Court e>pounded as follows#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6t is important to emphasiBe at this point that in the re#ent #ase resolved by this Court n 4anc in 27,entitled Manoto) Realt! "nc. v. C' Realt Development Corporation &the 27 Manoto) case', as well asthe su##eedin% resolution in the same #ase dated =ar#h -, 2 &the 2 Manoto) #ase', the #ontroversysurroundin% the =aysilo 9state and the @uestion of the e>isten#e of another /C +o. 0 have been finallylaid to rest. All other #ases involvin% said estate and /C +o. 0, su#h as the #ase at bar, are bound bythe findin%s and #on#lusions set forth in said resolutions.

As stated earlier, petitioner an#hors her #laim on previous #ases de#ided by this Court whi#h have held thatthere are two e>istin% /C +o. 0, dated differently, and the one from whi#h she and her #o(plaintiffs &inCivil Case +o. C(020' derived their ri%hts was dated earlier, hen#e, was the superior title. Re%rettably,petitioners #laim no lon%er has a le% to stand on. As we held in the 27 Manoto) #ase#ralawred

he determinative test to resolve whether the prior de#ision of this Court should be affirmed or set aside iswhether or not the titles invo5ed by the respondents are valid. 6f these titles are sour#ed from the so(#alled

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


/C +o. 0 dated -7 April --7, then su#h titles are void or otherwise should not be re#o%niBed by thisCourt. 4in#e the true basi# fa#tual predi#ate #on#ernin% /C +o. 0 whi#h is that there is only one su#h/C differs from that e>pressed in the M&SS and 3on*aga de#isions, said rulin%s have be#omevirtually functus officio e>#ept on the basis of the ;law of the #ase< do#trine, and #an no lon%er be reliedupon as pre#edents.

4pe#ifi#ally, petitioner #annot anymore insist that /C +o. 0 alle%edly issued on April -, --7 validly anda#tually e>ists, %iven the followin% #on#lusions made by this Court in the 27 Manoto) #ase#ralawred

F+r(, ()&r& + on'y on& OCT No. 994. A +( a**&ar on ()& r&or-, ()a( o()&r (+('& %a r&&+&-/or (ranr+*(+on 3y ()& R&+(&r o/ D&&- on ay 1917, an- ()a( )ou'- 3& ()& -a(& %)+))ou'- 3& r&on&- a ()& -a(& o/ r&+(ra(+on o/ ()& (+('&. I( ay a'o 3& ano%'&-&-, aa**&ar on ()& (+('&, ()a( OCT No. 994 r&u'(&- /ro ()& +uan& o/ ()& -&r&& o/ r&+(ra(+on onH19 A*r+' 1917, a'()ou) u) -a(& anno( 3& on+-&r&- a ()& -a(& o/ ()& (+('& or ()& -a(&%)&n ()& (+('& (oo &//&(.

S&on-. Any (+('& ()a( (ra& +( our& (o OCT No. 994 -a(&- H19 A*r+' 1917 + o+-, /or u)o()&r (+('& + +n&?+(&n(. T)& /a( ()a( ()& D+on an- CLT (+('& a-& *&+/+ r&/&r&n& (o anOCT No. 994 -a(&- H19 A*r+' 1917 a( -ou3( on ()& a'+-+(y o/ u) (+('& +n& ()&y r&/&r (o an+n&?+(&n( OCT. ? ? ?.

T)+r-. T)& -&++on o/ ()+ Cour( +n &WSS v. Court o! Appeals an-7ona*a v. Court o! Appeals anno( a**'y (o ()& a& a( 3ar, &*&+a''y +n r&ar- (o ()&+r r&on+(+on o/ an OCT No.

994 -a(&- 19 A*r+' 1917, a (+('& %)+) %& no% ano%'&-& a +n&?+(&n(. N&+()&r ou'- ()&on'u+on +n &WSS or 7ona*a %+() r&*&( (o an OCT No. 994 -a(&- 19 A*r+' 1917 3+n- anyo()&r a& o*&ra(+n un-&r ()& /a(ua' &((+n ()& a& a or ++'ar (o ()a( a( 3ar.

o be sure, this Court did not merely rely on the "/J and 4enate reports re%ardin% /C +o. 0. 6n the27 Manoto) #ase, this Court #onstituted a 4pe#ial "ivision of the Court of Appeals to hear the #ases onremand, de#larin% as follows #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

4in#e this Court is not a trier of fa#tIs, we are not prepared to adopt the findin%s made by the "/J and the4enate, or even #onsider whether these are admissible as eviden#e, thou%h su#h @uestions may be#onsidered by the Court of Appeals upon the initiative of the parties. > > >. he reports #annot #on#lusivelysupersede or overturn judi#ial de#isions, but if admissible they may be ta5en into a##ount as eviden#e onthe same level as the other pie#es of eviden#e submitted by the parties. he fa#t that they were renderedby the "/J and the 4enate should not, in itself, persuade the #ourts to a##ept them without in@uiry. hefa#ts and ar%uments presented in the reports must still under%o judi#ial s#rutiny and analysis, and #ertainlythe #ourts will have the dis#retion to a##ept or reje#t them.

here are many fa#tual @uestions loomin% over the properties that #ould only be threshed out in the remandto the Court of Appeals. > > >.#ralawred

> > > >

he 4pe#ial "ivision is tas5ed to hear and re#eive eviden#e, #on#lude the pro#eedin%s and submit to thisCourt a report on its findin%s and re#ommended #on#lusions within three &' months from finality of thisResolution.

hus, in the 2 Manoto) #ase, this Court evaluated the eviden#e en%a%ed in by said 4pe#ial "ivision, andadopted the latters #on#lusions as to the status of the ori%inal title and its subse@uent #onveyan#es. T)+a& a//+r&- ()& &ar'+&r /+n-+n ()a( ()&r& + on'y on& OCT No. 994, ()& r&+(ra(+on -a(& o/%)+) )a- a'r&a-y 3&&n -&++&'y &(('&- a ay 1917 anno( 19 A*r+' 1917K an- a(&or+a''y

on'u-&- ()a( OCT No. 994 %)+) r&/'&( ()& -a(& o/ 19 A*r+' 1917 a +( r&+(ra(+on -a(& +nu'' an- o+-.< !? &9mphases added.'

6n Phil,Ville Development and $ousing Corporation v. 4onifacio,!! this Court upheld the validity of the titlesto a portion of land whi#h ori%inally formed part of the =aysilo 9state whi#h were sour#ed from /C +o. 0re%istered on =ay , --7, and de#lared as null and void a title purportedly overlappin% the said land whi#htra#ed its roots from /C +o. 0 re%istered on April -, --7. he Court found that it was physi#allyimpossible for 9leuteria Rivera, the person whom respondent Donifa#io #laims to be her prede#essor(in(interest, to be an heir of =aria de la Con#ep#ion *idal be#ause it would turn out that 9leuteria Rivera wasolder than her alle%ed %randmother =aria de la Con#ep#ion *idal, to wit#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


9ventually, on =ar#h -, 2, the 4upreme Court issued a Resolution reversin% its "e#ision of +ovember2, 2? and de#larin% #ertain titles in the names of Araneta and =anoto5 valid. 6n the #ourse of dis#ussin%the flaws of Jose "imsons title based on his alle%ed 2?F share in the hereditary ri%hts of Dartolome Rivera,9leuteria Riveras #o(petitioner in 8RC +o. 0??7, the Court noted#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

. . . 3owever, the re#ords of these #ases would somehow ne%ate the ri%hts of Rivera to #laim from *idal.he *erifi#ation Report of the 8and Re%istration Commission dated Au%ust -$- showed that Rivera was

!? years old on -7 =ay -! &as %athered from the re#ords of Civil Case +os. 002 and 00!'. 6t #an thusbe dedu#ed that, if Rivera was already !? years old in -!, then he must have been born around-$$. On ()& o()&r )an-, V+-a' %a on'y n+n& 9 y&ar +n 1912> )&n&, )& ou'- )a& 3&&n 3ornon'y on H190. his alone #reates an une>plained anomalous, if not ridi#ulous, situation wherein *idal,Riveras alle%ed )randmother, was seven &7' years youn%er than her alle%ed %randson. 4erious doubtse>isted as to whether Rivera was in fa#t an heir of *idal, for him to #laim a share in the disputed portions ofthe =aysilo 9state.

he same is true in this #ase. T)& D&a() C&r(+/+a(& o/ E'&u(&r+a R+&ra r&&a' ()a( )& %a 98y&ar o'- %)&n )& -+&- on F&3ruary 22, 1997. T)a( &an ()a( )& u( )a& 3&&n 3orn +n1901. T)a( a& R+&ra (%o y&ar o'-&r ()an )&r a''&&- ran-o()&r ar+a -& 'a Con&*+onV+-a' %)o %a 3orn +n 190. #&n&, +( %a *)y+a''y +*o+3'& /or E'&u(&r+a R+&ra (o 3& an)&+r o/ ar+a -& 'a Con&*+on V+-a'. &9mphases supplied, #itations omitted.'

Considerin% all of the above matters, espe#ially the fa#t that respondents #laim that their respe#tive titles,C +os. 2!?77$ and 2$?-, are derivatives of /C +o. 0 re%istered on A*r+' 19, 1917, whi#h thisCourt had already repeatedly de#lared to be a non(e>istent and invalid title, the Court rules in favor ofpetitioners. A )&'- +n &anoto;, Hany (+('& ()a( (ra& +( our& (o OCT No. 994 -a(&- H19 A*r+'1917 + o+-, /or u) o()&r (+('& + +n&?+(&n(.K!7

#ralawlawlibrary

6#EREFORE, in view of all the fore%oin%, the petition is hereby GRANTED. he "e#ision dated 1ebruary2, 2-, as well as the Resolution dated June 2!, 2- of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. C*. +o. ?7777whi#h affirmed in toto the "e#ision dated January , -$ of Dran#h -2! of the RC of the City of Caloo#anin Civil Case +o. C(!!, are REVERSED an- SET ASIDE. TCT No. 28577< in the name of 1elisa ".Donifa#io and C +o. 2$?- in the name of *4" Realty V "evelopment Corporation arede#lared N$LLand VOID. he Re%istry of "eeds of Caloo#an City is DIRECTED to CANCEL the said#ertifi#ates of title.

SO ORDERED. #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CLUB FILIPINO CASE..ONLINE

S;ECIAL SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1<0147, January 14, 2015

SARA LEE ;#ILI;;INES, INC., Petitioner , v. EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL.,1Respondents.

HG.R. NO. 1<014<

ARIS ;#ILI;;INES, INC., Petitioner , v. EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.

HG.R. NO. 1<0149

SARA LEE COR;ORATION, Petitioner , v. EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


HG.R. NO. 1<0150

CESAR C. CR$B, Petitioner , v. EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.

HG.R. NO. 1<019

FAS#ION ACCESSORIES ;#ILS., INC., Petitioner , v. EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL.,Respondents.

HG.R. NO. 1<08<5

EILINDA D. ACATLANG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NLRC, ARIS ;#ILI;;INES, INC., FAS#IONACCESSORIES ;#ILS., INC., SARA LEE COR;ORATION, SARA LEE ;#ILI;;INES, INC., COLLIN

EAL AND ATT. CESAR C. CR$B, Respondents.

R E S O L $ T I O N

;EREB, J."

his treats of the -' =otion for Re#onsideration with Kr%ent Petition for the Courts Approval of the Pendin% ;=otion for 8eave of Court to 1ile and Admit 3erein 4tatement and Confession of Jud%ment to Duy Pea#e

andGor 4e#ure a%ainst any Possible Contin%ent 8iability by 4ara 8ee Corporation< filed by 4ara 8eePhilippines 6n#. &48P6', Aris Philippines 6n#. &Aris', 4ara 8ee Corporation &48C' and Cesar C. CruB, 2' =otionfor Re#onsideration filed by 1ashion A##essories Phils. 6n#. &1AP6', and ' =anifestation of Conformity to the=otion for 8eave of Court to 1ile and Admit Confession of Jud%ment to Duy Pea#e andGor to 4e#ure a%ainstany Possible Contin%ent 8iability by Petitioner 48C.

6n the "e#ision dated 0 June 2-0, this Court dire#ted 48P6, Aris, 48C, Cesar CruB, and 1AP6, #olle#tively5nown as the Corporations, to post P72? =illion, in #ash or surety bond, within - days from the re#eipt ofthe "e#ision. he Court further nullified the Resolution of the +ational 8abor Relations Commission &+8RC'dated - "e#ember 2! for bein% premature.

he =otion for Re#onsideration is an#hored on the followin% %rounds #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

A. he Court failed to #onsider the ;=otion for 8eave of Court to file and Admit 3erein 4tatement andConfession of Jud%ment to Duy Pea#e andGor to 4e#ure A%ainst any Possible Contin%ent 8iability by Petitioner4ara 8ee Corporation< &hereafter the ;#ompromise a%reement<' filed by petitioner 4ara 8ee Corporation onJune 2, 2-0 before re#eipt of the "e#ision of June 0, 2-0 on July -, 2-0 with the #onformity of therespondents in their ;=anifestation and Conformity to the Petitioners =otion for 8eave to 1ile and Admit4tatement of Confession of Jud%ment< dated July 0, 2-0 whi#h #ould have terminated the present #asesand avoid delays with its remand for further pro#eedin%s below.

D. he Court did not duly rule on the violations of the ri%hts of due pro#ess of Petitioner 48P6 as shown bythe followin%#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

-. he 8abor Arbiter has never a#@uired jurisdi#tion over Petitioner 48P6 whi#h was never impleaded as aparty respondent and was never validly served with summons whi#h fa#t was spe#ifi#ally mentioned in+8RCs Resolution of "e#ember -, 2!E and

2. here is no employer(employee relationships between Petitioner 48P6 and the respondents.

C. he Court did not duly rule on the violations of the ri%hts of due pro#ess of Petitioner 48C be#ause of the

followin%#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

-. he 8abor Arbiter has never a#@uired jurisdi#tion over Petitioner 48C whi#h was never impleaded as aparty respondent and was never validly served with summons whi#h fa#t was spe#ifi#ally raised by the Courtas an issue in pa%e -2 of the "e#ision of June 0, 2-0 but remained unresolvedE and

2. here is no employer(employee relationship between Petitioner 48C and the respondents.

". he Court did not duly rule on the violations of the ri%hts of due pro#ess of Petitioner Cesar C. CruB asshown by the followin% #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

-. he 8abor Arbiter has never a#@uired jurisdi#tion over Petitioner Cesar C. CruB who was never impleadedas a party respondent and was never validly served with summonsE and

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


2. here is no employer(employee relationship between petitioner Cesar C. CruB and the respondents.#ralawred

9. here was no le%al impediment for the +8RC to issue its Resolution of "e#ember -, 2! va#atin% the8abor Arbiters "e#ision and remandin% the #ase to the 8abor Arbiter for further pro#eedin% as no emporaryRestrainin% /rder &R/' or Writ of Preliminary 6njun#tion was issued by the Court of Appeals and the rule on judi#ial #ourtesy remains the e>#eption rather than the rule.

1. he Court did not duly rule on the appli#ability of the final and e>e#utory "e#ision of 1ullido, et al., v. ArisPhilippines, 6n#. and Cesar C. CruB &).R. +o. -$?0$' with respe#t to the present #onsolidated #ases#onsiderin% the identi#al fa#ts and issues involved plus the fa#t that the Court in 1ullido sustained thefindin%s and de#isions of three &' other tribunals, i.e., the Court of Appeals, the +8RC and the 8abor Arbiter.

). he Court failed to #onsider the pres#ription of the #omplaints for money #laims filed by the respondentsa%ainst the Petitioners under Arti#le 2- of the 8abor Code due to the lapse of three &' years and four &0'months when Petitioners were impleaded as respondents only throu%h the amendment of #omplaints by the#omplainants, the respondents herein.

3. he Court also did not #onsider that the Complaints filed by the respondents are barred byres Hudicata be#ause of the final and e>e#utory de#ision rendered by the *oluntary Arbitrator on the identi#alfa#ts and issues in the #ase filed by the labor union representin% the respondents a%ainst Petitioner AP6.

6. Contrary to the "e#ision of June 0, 2-0, the Abelardo petition &CA )R 4P +o. ?-, Pa#ita 4. Abelardov. +8RC, Aris, Philippines, 6n#.' was filed earlier than the =a#atlan% petition &CA )R 4P +o. !!' as shownby the lower do#5et number, thus, the =a#atlan% petition should be the one dismissed for forum shoppin%.

J. 6n fi>in% the bond to PhP72? =illion whi#h is 2?F of the monetary award, the Court failed to #onsider the9n Dan# "e#ision in =#Durnie v. )anBon, 77 4CRA !0!, ! &2-' whi#h re@uired only the postin% of abond e@uivalent to ten per#ent &-F' of the monetary award.2

We briefly revisit the fa#tual milieu of this #ase.

Aris permanently #eased operations on /#tober -? displa#in% ?,$0 ran5(and(file employees. /n 2!/#tober -?, 1AP6 was in#orporated promptin% former Aris employees to file a #ase for ille%al dismissal onthe alle%ations that 1AP6 was a #ontinuin% business of Aris. 48C, 48P and Cesar CruB were impleaded asdefendants bein% major sto#5holders of 1AP6 and offi#ers of Aris, respe#tively.

/n /#tober 20, the 8abor Arbiter found the dismissal of ?,$0 Aris employees ille%al and awardedthem monetary benefits amountin% to P,0?,!!0,7-.$!. he jud%ment award is #omposed of separationpay of one month for every year of servi#e, ba#5wa%es, moral and e>emplary dama%es and attorneys fees.

he Corporations filed a +oti#e of Appeal with =otion to Redu#e Appeal Dond. hey posted a P0.? =illionbond. he +8RC %ranted the redu#tion of the appeal bond and ordered the Corporations to post anadditional P0.? =illion bond.

he ?,$0 former Aris employees, represented by 9milinda =a#atlan% &=a#atlan% petition', filed a petitionfor review before the Court of Appeals insistin% that the appeal was not perfe#ted due to failure of theCorporations to post the #orre#t amount of the bond whi#h is e@uivalent to the jud%ment award.

While the #ase was pendin% before the appellate #ourt, the +8RC prematurely issued an order settin% asidethe de#ision of the 8abor Arbiter for bein% pro#edurally infirmed.

he Court of Appeals, on 2! =ar#h 27, ordered the Corporations to post an additional appeal bond of P-Dillion.

6n our "e#ision dated 0 June 2-0, we modified the Court of Appeals "e#ision, to wit #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

W39R91/R9, the "e#ision of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. 4P +o. !! dated 2! =ar#h 27 is=/"6169". he Corporations are dire#ted to post P72? =illion, in #ash or surety bond, within 9+ &-' daysfrom the re#eipt of this "9C646/+. he Resolution of the +8RC dated - "e#ember 2! is *ACA9" forbein% premature and the +8RC is "6R9C9" to a#t with dispat#h to resolve the merits of the #ase uponperfe#tion of the appeal.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


We also resolved the pro#edural issue of forum(shoppin% by holdin% that the 0-- petitioners of the Pa#itaAbelardo petition &Abelardo petition' are not representative of the interest of all petitioners in =a#atlan%petition. he number is barely suffi#ient to #omprise the majority of petitioners in =a#atlan% petition and itwould be the hei%ht of injusti#e to dismiss the =a#atlan% petition whi#h evidently enjoys the support of anoverwhelmin% majority due to the mista5e #ommitted by petitioners in the Abelardo petition.

he =otion for Re#onsideration has no merit.

he Corporations s#ore this Court for failin% to #onsider the rulin% in Mc4urnie v. 3an*on0 whi#h purportedlyre@uired only the postin% of a bond e@uivalent to -F of the monetary award.

he Corporations %ravely misappre#iated the rulin% in Mc4urnie. he -F re@uirement pertains to thereasonable amount whi#h the +8RC would a##ept as the minimum of the bond that should a##ompany themotion to redu#e bond in order to suspend the period to perfe#t an appeal under the +8RC rules. he -Fis based on the jud%ment award and should in no #ase be #onstrued as the minimum amount of bond to beposted in order to perfe#t appeal. here is no room for a different interpretation when Mc4urnie made it#lear that the per#enta%e of bond set is provisional, thus #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

he fore%oin% shall not be mis#onstrued to unduly hinder the +8RCs e>er#ise of its dis#retion, %iven that theper#enta%e of bond that is set by this %uideline shall be merely provisional. he +8RC retains its authorityand duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the

appellant, still in a##ordan#e with the standards of Tmeritorious %roundsT and Treasonable amount.T 4houldthe +8RC, after #onsiderin% the motions merit, determine that a %reater amount or the full amount of thebond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall #omply a##ordin%ly. he appellant shall be%iven a period of - days from noti#e of the +8RC order within whi#h to perfe#t the appeal by postin% there@uired appeal bond.

he Corporations ar%ue that there was no le%al impediment for the +R8C to issue its - "e#ember 2!Resolution va#atin% the 8abor Arbiters "e#ision as no R/ or injun#tion was issued by the Court of Appeals.he Corporations assert that the rule on judi#ial #ourtesy remains the e>#eption rather than the rule.

We do not a%ree. 6n the re#ent #ase of 'raHano v. >ni(ide Sales &arehouse Club!? this Court %ave a briefdis#ourse on judi#ial #ourtesy, whi#h #on#ept was first introdu#ed in ternal 3ardens Memorial Par) Corp. v.Court of Appeals,! to wit#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

> > > Ithe prin#iple of judi#ial #ourtesy to justify the suspension of the pro#eedin%s before the lower #ourteven without an injun#tive writ or order from the hi%her #ourt. 6n that #ase, we pronoun#ed that ;Iduerespe#t for the 4upreme Court and pra#ti#al and ethi#al #onsiderations should have prompted the appellate#ourt to wait for the final determination of the petition Ifor #ertiorari before ta5in% #o%niBan#e of the #aseand tryin% to render moot e>a#tly what was before this ICourt.< We subse@uently reiterated the #on#ept of judi#ial #ourtesy in 5o Mart Consolidated Corp. v. Court of Appeals.

We, however, have @ualified and limited the appli#ation of judi#ial #ourtesy in 3o v. Abrogar and Republic v.Sandiganbaan. 6n these #ases, we e>pressly delimited the appli#ation of judi#ial #ourtesy to maintain theeffi#a#y of 4e#tion 7, Rule !? of the Rules of Court, and held that the prin#iple of judi#ial #ourtesy appliesonly ;if there is a stron% probability that the issues before the hi%her #ourt would be rendered moot andmoribund as a result of the #ontinuation of the pro#eedin%s in the lower #ourt.< hrou%h these #ases, we#larified that the prin#iple of judi#ial #ourtesy remains to be the e>#eption rather than the rule.7

he Corporations ar%ument is spe#ious. Judi#ial #ourtesy indeed applies if there is a stron% probability thatthe issues before the hi%her #ourt would be rendered moot as a result of the #ontinuation of the pro#eedin%sin the lower #ourt. his is the e>#eption #ontemplated in the aforesaid rulin% and it obtains in this #ase. he- "e#ember 2! rulin% of the +8RC would moot the appeal filed before the hi%her #ourts be#ause theissue involves the appeal bond whi#h is an indispensable re@uirement to the perfe#tion of the appeal beforethe +8RC. Knless this issue is resolved, the +8RC should be pre#luded from rulin% on the merits on the#ase. his is the essen#e of judi#ial #ourtesy.

he other %rounds raised by the Corporations in this =otion for Re#onsideration su#h as the denial of duepro#ess due to invalid servi#e of summons on 48P6, 48C and Cesar CruBE pres#ription, res Hudicata, and theappli#ability of the %ulido #ase$ with the instant #ase were all raised and resolved by the 8abor Arbiter in

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


favor of former Aris employees in its "e#ision dated /#tober 20. hat same de#ision was appealed bythe Corporations before the +8RC. he perfe#tion of said appeal throu%h the postin% of a partial bond wasput into @uestion and that is pre#isely the main issue brou%ht before the appellate #ourt and before us.

Dy ur%in% this Court to ma5e a definitive rulin% on these issues petitioners would have us rule on the merits,whi#h at this point this Court #annot do as the labor pro#eedin%s remain in#omplete. 6f at all, the sta%e thathas been passed is the pro#eedin%s before the 8abor Arbiter. And, without the +8RC sta%e, the 8abor

Arbiters de#ision is final and e>e#utory. 6t is obvious that petitioners do not want either of the two optionsnow open to them a' allow the finality of the adverse jud%ment in the amount of P,0?,!!0,7-.$!, or b'file the P7? =illion bond for the review by the +8RC of the P,0?,!!0,7-.$! de#ision of the 8aborArbiter. hey would want their liability finally redu#ed to just half of the amount of the re@uired appealbond, or P? million. he injusti#e to the employees is patent.

+ow we pro#eed to ta#5le the =otion filed by the parties to Admit Confession of Jud%ment.

he Corporations entered into a #ompromise with some of the former Aris employees whi#h they desi%nateas Confession of Jud%ment. he Corporations reason that a resort to jud%ment by #onfession is thea##eptable alternative to a #ompromise a%reement be#ause of the impossibility to obtain the #onsent to a#ompromise of all the ?,$0 #omplainants.

A #onfession of jud%ment is an a#5nowled%ment that a debt is justly due and #uts off all defenses and ri%htof appeal. 6t is used as a short#ut to a jud%ment in a #ase where the defendant #on#edes liability. 6t is seen

as the written authority of the debtor and a dire#tion for entry of jud%ment a%ainst the debtor.#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he Corporations #ite the #ase of Republic of the Philippines v. 4isaa and 'ransportation Co.- to outlinethe distin#tion between a #ompromise a%reementGjud%ment on #onsent and a #onfession of jud%mentGjud%ment by #onfession, thus#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

> > > a motion for jud%ment on #onsent is not to be e@uated with a jud%ment by #onfession. he former isone the provisions and terms of whi#h are settled and a a%reed upon by the parties to the a#tion, and whi#his entered in the re#ord by the #onsent and san#tion of the #ourt, 3en#e, there must be an un@ualifieda%reement amon% the parties to be bound by the jud%ment on #onsent before said jud%ment may beentered. he #ourt does not have the power to supply terms, provisions, or essential details not previouslya%reed to by the parties > > >. /n the other hand, a jud%ment by #onfession is not a plea but an affirmativeand voluntary a#t of the defendant himself. 3ere, the #ourt e>er#ises a #ertain amount of supervision overthe entry of jud%ment, as well as e@uitable jurisdi#tion over their subse@uent status.--

6n the same breadth, the Corporations also a#5nowled%e that a #ompromise a%reement and a jud%ment by#onfession stand upon the same footin% in that both may not be e>e#uted by #ounsel without 5nowled%e andauthority of the #lient. 6f we were to rely on the Corporations submission that all ?,$0 #omplainants 4PAs#ould not be obtained, then the Confession of Jud%ment is void.

9ven if we dismiss the Corporations #hoi#e of desi%nation as pure semanti#s and #onsider the a%reementthey entered into with the #omplainants as a form of a #ompromise a%reement, we still #ould not approvethe same.

We elu#idate.

A #ompromise is a #ontra#t whereby the parties, by ma5in% re#ipro#al #on#essions, avoid a liti%ation or putan end to one already #ommen#ed. 6t is an a%reement between two or more persons, who, for preventin%or puttin% an end to a lawsuit, adjust their diffi#ulties by mutual #onsent in the manner whi#h they a%ree on,

and whi#h everyone of them prefers to the hope of %ainin%, balan#ed by the dan%er of losin%.-2#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A #ompromise must not be #ontrary to law, morals, %ood #ustoms and publi# poli#yE and must have beenfreely and intelli%ently e>e#uted by and between the parties.-

#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Arti#le 227 of the 8abor Code of the Philippines authoriBes #ompromise a%reements voluntarily a%reed uponby the parties, in #onformity with the basi# poli#y of the 4tate ;to promote and emphasiBe the prima#y offree #olle#tive bar%ainin% and ne%otiations, in#ludin% voluntary arbitration, mediation and #on#iliation, asmodes of settlin% labor or industrial disputes.< -0 he provision reads#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


AR. 227 Compromise A%reements. Any #ompromise settlement, in#ludin% those involvin% labor standardlaws, voluntarily a%reed upon by the parties with the assistan#e of the Dureau or the re%ional offi#e of the"epartment of 8abor, shall be final and bindin% upon the parties. he +ational 8abor Relations Commissionor any #ourt shall not assume jurisdi#tion over issues involved therein e>#ept in #ase of non#omplian#ethereof or if there is prima fa#ie eviden#e that the settlement was obtained throu%h fraud,misrepresentation, or #oer#ion.

A #ompromise a%reement is valid as lon% as the #onsideration is reasonable and the employee si%ned thewaiver voluntarily, with a full understandin% of what he was enterin% into.-?


he #ompromise a%reement whi#h the Corporations deem as Confession of Jud%ment is reprodu#ed in fullbelow#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

CONFESSION OF J$DGENT

he undersi%ned #ounsel, by virtue of the spe#ial authority %ranted by 3688436R9 earlier atta#hed as Anne> ;D< and made an inte%ral part hereof see5s the approval of this 3onorable Court of this Jud%ment byConfession under the followin% terms and #onditions, to wit #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

-. 3688436R9 will pay to the ?,$0 respondents &#omplainants' the total amount of 3R99 3K+"R9" 1/RQW/ =6886/+ W/ 3K+"R9" 96)3Q(1/KR 3/K4A+" A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" P94/4

&PhP02,2$0,$.' or at 161Q 49*9+ 3/K4A+" W/ 3K+"R9" P94/4 &PhP?7,2.' for ea#hrespondent &#omplainant' in#lusive of the attorneys fees of 96)3 3/K4A+" 16*9 3K+"R9" 96)3QP94/4 &PhP$,?$.' whi#h ea#h respondent &#omplainant' will a#tually pay to their #ounsel of re#ord asthe total #onsideration for the dismissal with prejudi#e of all the pendin% #ases before this 3onorable Courtand all the #ases pendin% before the +ational 8abor Relations Commission a%ainst all the petitioners.

2. he above a%reed amount of 3R99 3K+"R9" 1/RQ W/ =6886/+ W/ 3K+"R9" 96)3Q(1/KR3/K4A+" A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" P94/4 &PhP02,2$0,$.' shall be distributed as follows #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

2.- 1/RQ 96)3 3/K4A+" 46: I3K+"R9" W9+Q P94/4 &PhP0$,!2.' to ea#h respondent&#omplainant', and

2.2 96)3 3/K4A+" 16*9 3K+"R9" 96)3Q P94/4 &PhP$,?$.' to the lawyer of ea#h respondent&#omplainant' by virtue of the 4pe#ial Power of Attorney %iven by ea#h respondent &#omplainant' to lead9milinda ". =a#atlan% who %ave 4PA to Atty. Ale> an.

. 3688436R9 will deposit the amount of 3R99 3K+"R9" 1/RQ W/ =6886/+ W/ 3K+"R9" 96)3Q(1/KR 3/K4A+" A+" 96)3 3K+"R9" P94/4 &PhP02,2$0,$.' with a lo#al ban5 duly li#ensed by theDan%5o 4entral n% Pilipinas &D4P' within si>ty &!' days from the date of the issuan#e of a Certifi#ate of1inality andGor 9ntry of Jud%ment of the "e#ision of this 3onorable Court on this Confession of Jud%ment.

0. he amount of 1/RQ 96)3 3/K4A+" 46: 3K+"R9" W9+Q P94/4 &PhP0$,!2.' shall be paiddire#tly to ea#h respondent &#omplainant' and the #orrespondin% attorneys fees of 96)3 3/K4A+" 16*93K+"R9" 96)3Q P94/4 &PhP$,?$.' shall be paid to their lawyers &duly authoriBed by an 4PA' by theban5 throu%h a mana%ers #he#5.

?. he total deposit of 3R99 3K+"R9" 1/RQ W/ =6886/+ W/ 3K+"R9" 96)3Q 1/KR 3/K4A+"96)3 3K+"R9" P94/4 &PhP02,2$0,$.' must be #laimed by the respondents &#omplainants' from thedepository ban5 within two &2' years from the date of the Certifi#ate of 1inality or 9ntry of Jud%ment issuedby this 3onorable Court.

!. Any balan#e of the deposited amount whi#h remains un#laimed by the respondents &#omplainants' withinthe two &2' year period referred to above shall automati#ally revert and be returned to and may bewithdrawn by 3688436R9 andGor its attorney(in(fa#t, without the ne#essity of any prior /rder or permissionfrom this 3onorable Court.

7. hereafter, upon e>piration of the two &2' year period referred to above, 3688436R9s obli%ation to ma5eany payment to the respondents &Complainants' shall ipso facto #ease, e>pire and terminate and the jud%ment by #onfession shall be #onsidered satisfied, fulfilled and terminated.

$. he ban5 to whi#h the amount of the #onfessed jud%ment &PhP02,2$0,$.' is deposited shall beauthoriBed by 3688436R9 throu%h the undersi%ned attorney to pay to individual respondents &#omplainants'

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


listed in the ori%inal "e#ision dated /#tober , 20 of the 8abor Arbiter andGor their lawyers the abovea%reed amounts subje#t to the followin% #onditions#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

$.- Complainants shall personally #laim the payment to them from the ban5 upon presentation of anyre#o%niBed %overnment 6"s su#h as "rivers 8i#ense, 4enior CitiBens Card, *oters 6", 444 6", Knified=ultipurpose 6dentifi#ation Card, Postal 6", Passport, or Certifi#ation Knder /ath by the Daran%ay Chairmanas to the identity of the respondent &#omplainant', or

$.2 Dy the duly authoriBed representative of respondent &#omplainant' eviden#ed by a duly notariBed 4pe#ialPower of Attorney in #ase the respondent &#omplainant' #annot personally #laim hisGher payment due tosi#5ness or physi#al disability.

. he lead #omplainant, =s. 9milinda ". =a#atlan%, and Atty. Ale> an shall ta5e ade@uate steps to informall the respondents &#omplainants' by personal noti#e or media announ#ement of this #onfession of jud%ment upon re#eipt of the "e#ision of this 3onorable Court.

-. All fully paid respondents &#omplainants' shall e>e#ute a Waiver, Release and uit#laim.

--. Kpon the approval of this Confession of Jud%ment by this 3onorable Court, all #ases pendin% before this3onorable Court and the +8RC shall automati#ally be #onsidered dismissed, terminated and of no for#e andeffe#t.

Petitioners invite the attention of this 3onorable Court that the above monetary #onsideration for both therespondents &#omplainants' and their #ounsel under the above terms and #onditions have been a%reed uponwith Atty. Ale> an before the filin% of this #onfession of jud%ment.

o reiterate, this #onfession of jud%ment is made by 3688436R9 for the purpose of buyin% pea#e andGor tose#ure to the said petitioner and the other Petitioners a%ainst any possible #ontin%ent liability whi#h maya##rue to them as a #onse@uen#e of their havin% been made Respondents in the Complaints filed by theComplainants before the +8RC. -!

A review of the #ompromise a%reement shows a %ross disparity between the amount offered by theCorporations #ompared to the jud%ment award. he jud%ment award is P,0?,!!0,7-.$! or ea#hemployee is slated to re#eive P?77,-0.$?. /n the other hand, the P02,2$0,$. #ompromise is to bedistributed amon% ?,$0 employees whi#h would translate to only P?7,2. per employee. 1rom thisamount, P$,?$. as attorneys fees will be dedu#ted, leavin% ea#h employee with a measly P0$,!2..6n fa#t, the #ompromised amount rou%hly #omprises only -F of the jud%ment award.

6n our "e#ision, the appeal bond was set at P72? =illion after ta5in% into #onsideration the interests of allparties. o reiterate, the underlyin% purpose of the appeal bond is to ensure that the employer hasproperties on whi#h he or she #an e>e#ute upon in the event of a final, providential award. hus, non(payment or woefully insuffi#ient payment of the appeal bond by the employer frustrates these ends.-7 As amatter of fa#t, the appeal bond is valid and effe#tive from the date of postin% until the #ase is terminated orthe award is satisfied.-$ /ur "e#ision hi%hli%hts the importan#e of an appeal bond su#h that said amountshould be the base amount for ne%otiation between the parties. As it is, the P02,2$0,$. #ompromiseis still measly #ompared to the P72? =illion bond we set in this #ase, as it only a##ounts to appro>imately?F of the redu#ed appeal bond.

6n Arellano v. Po(ertech Corporation,- we voided the P-?,. #ompromise for the P2.? =illion jud%ment on appeal to the +8RC. We note that the #ompromise is a mere !F of the #ontin%ent sum thatmay be re#eived by petitioners and the minus#ule amount is #ertainly @uestionable be#ause it does notrepresent a true and fair amount whi#h a reasonable a%ent may bar%ain for his prin#ipal.2


6n Mindoro umber and $ard(are v. 4aca ,2- we found that the private respondents individual #laims,ran%in% from P!,700.2 to P202,!2!., are %rossly disproportionate to what ea#h of them a#tually re#eivedunder the Sama,samang Salasa sa Pag,uurong ng Sa)dal . he amount of the settlement is indubitablyun#ons#ionableE hen#e, ineffe#tive to bar the wor5ers from #laimin% the full measure of their le%alri%hts.22


he #omplainants filed a motion for re#onsideration as5in% this Court to modify its "e#ision on the %roundthat the parties have entered into a #ompromise a%reement. he #omplainants justified their a#@uies#en#eto the #ompromise on the possibility that it will ta5e another de#ade before the #ase may be resolved andattained finality. We be% to disa%ree.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n our "e#ision, we have already dire#ted the +8RC to a#t with dispat#h in resolvin% the merits of the #aseupon re#eipt of the #ash or surety bond in the amount of P72? =illion within - days from re#eipt of the"e#ision. 6f indeed the parties want an immediate and e>peditious resolution of the #ase, then the +8RCshould be unhindered with te#hni#alities to dispose of the #ase.

A##eptin% an outra%eously low amount of #onsideration as #ompromise defeats the #omplainants le%itimate

#laim.

6n >nicane &or)ers >nion,C>P v. #RC ,2 we held the P-,. amount in the @uit#laim isun#ons#ionable be#ause the #omplainants had been awarded by the labor arbiter more than P2 million. 6tshould have been aware that had petitioners pursued their #ase, they would have been assured of %ettin%said amount, sin#e, absent a perfe#ted appeal, #omplainants were already entitled to said amount by virtueof a final jud%ment. We pro#eeded to state that #hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

+ot all @uit#laims are per se invalid as a%ainst publi# poli#y. Dut, where there is #lear proof that the waiverwas wran%led from an unsuspe#tin% or %ullible person, or the terms of settlement are un#ons#ionable on itsfa#e, then the law will step in to annul the @uestionable transa#tion.20

6n fine, we will not hesitate to stri5e down a #ompromise a%reement whi#h is un#ons#ionable and a%ainstpubli# poli#y.

6#EREFORE, the Court DENIES petitionersO =otion for Re#onsideration and =otion for 8eave of Court to1ile and Admit 3erein 4tatement and Confession of Jud%mentE and the respondents Partial =otion forRe#onsideration for their la#5 of merit. he dire#tive in the "e#ision dated 0 June 2-0 to the +ational8abor Relations Commission to a#t with dispat#h to resolve the merits of the #ase upon perfe#tion of theappeal is hereby REITERATED.

SO ORDERED.

EN ANC

A.. No. 09=8=1=SC, January 21, 2015

RE" VIOLATION OF R$LES ON NOTARIAL ;RACTICE

D E C I S I O N

ENDOBA, J."

his #ase stemmed from three &' letter(#omplaints for *iolation of Rules on +otarial Pra#ti#e endorsed tothe /ffi#e of the Dar Confidant &04C ' for appropriate a#tion. he first letter(#omplaint,- dated =ar#h 2,2, was filed by the #ommissioned notaries publi# within and for the jurisdi#tion of 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan,namely, Atty. Dut#h Cardinal orio, Atty. +epthalie Pasiliao, Atty. "omini@ue 9van%elista, and Atty. 9liBabethC. u%ade &complainants' before the 9>e#utive Jud%e of the Re%ional rial Court, 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan&R'C,ingaen' a%ainst Atty. Juan C. 4iapno, Jr. & Att. Siapno' for notariBin% do#uments without a#ommission.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n their letter, #omplainants alle%ed that Atty. 4iapno was maintainin% a notarial offi#e alon% Alvear 4treet9ast, 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan, and was performin% notarial a#ts and pra#ti#es in 8in%ayen, +atividad and"a%upan City without the re@uisite notarial #ommission. hey asserted that Atty. 4iapno was never#ommissioned as +otary Publi# for and within the jurisdi#tion of 8in%ayen, +atividad and "a%upan City.6nstead, he applied and was #ommissioned to perform notarial fun#tions by 9>e#utive Jud%e Anthony 4isonof the RC, 4an Carlos City, Pan%asinan from =ar#h 22, 27 to "e#ember -, 2$. 3is notarial#ommission, however, was never renewed upon e>piration. Complainants presented eviden#e supportin%

their alle%ations su#h as the pi#tures of Atty. 4iapnos law offi#e in 8in%ayen, Pan%asinanE and do#uments toprove that Atty. 4iapno performed a#ts of notariBation in 8in%ayen, +atividad and "a%upan City, to wit &-'Addendum to 8oan and =ort%a%e A%reement2 showin% that the Promissory +ote was notariBed before Atty.4iapno in 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan in 27E &2' "eed of Absolute 4ale, dated January 20, 2$, notariBed in+atividad, Pan%asinanE &' Joint Affidavit of wo "isinterested Persons Re )iven +ame and "ate ofDirth,0 dated January !, 2, notariBed in "a%upan CityE and &0' A#5nowled%ement of "ebt,?dated January20, 2$, notariBed in "a%upan City.

Complainants also averred that Atty. 4iapno had dele%ated his notarial authority to his se#retaries, =inaDautista &4autista' and =ary Ann Arenas & Arenas', who wrote le%al instruments and si%ned the do#umentson his behalf.

/n =ar#h -7, 2, the RC(8in%ayen forwarded the said letter(#omplaint to the /ffi#e of the CourtAdministrator &0CA'! whi#h, in turn, indorsed the same to the /DC.

he se#ond letter(#omplaint7 was filed by Audy D. 9spelita &spelita' a%ainst Atty. Pedro 8. 4antos & Att.Santos'. 6t alle%ed that in 2$, 9spelita lost his drivers li#ense and he e>e#uted an affidavit of loss whi#hwas notariBed by Atty. 4antos. he said affidavit, however, was denied for authenti#ation when presentedbefore the +otarial 4e#tion in =anila be#ause Atty. 4antos was not #ommissioned to perform notarial#ommission within the City of =anila.

he third letter(#omplaint$ #ame from a #on#erned #itiBen reportin% that a #ertain Atty. 9velyn who washoldin% offi#e at Room 02 8eyba Dld%., $- "asmarias 4treet, 4ta. CruB, =anila, had been notariBin% andsi%nin% do#uments for and on behalf of several lawyers.

6n its Resolution, dated June , 2, the Court dire#ted the 9>e#utive Jud%e of the RC(8in%ayen to#ondu#t a formal investi%ation on the #omplaint a%ainst Atty. 4iapno and 9>e#utive Jud%e Reynaldo ). Ros& 5udge Ros' of the RC(=anila to #ondu#t a formal investi%ation on the alle%ed violation of the +otarial 8awby Atty. 4antos, and the ille%al a#tivities of a #ertain Atty. 9velyn, and thereafter, to submit a report andre#ommendation thereon.

ReB Complaint against Att. Siapno

With re%ard to the #omplaint a%ainst Atty. 4iapno, the 9>e#utive Jud%e #ondu#ted a hearin% wherein the#omplainants affirmed the alle%ations in their letter(#omplaint. 1or his part, Atty. 4iapno denied thea##usations and averred that the law offi#e in 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan, was not his and that Dautista andArenas were not his se#retaries.-

6n her Report and Re#ommendation,-- the 9>e#utive Jud%e found that Atty. 4iapno was issued a notarial#ommission within the jurisdi#tion of 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan, from January 2, 2 to "e#ember -, 20and 1ebruary $, 2? to "e#ember , 2!. 3is #ommission, however, was #an#elled on June $, 2! andhe was not issued another #ommission thereafter. he 9>e#utive Jud%e found Atty. 4iapno to have violatedthe 20 Rules on +otarial Commission when he performed notarial fun#tions without #ommission andre#ommended that he be fined in the amount of 1ifty housand Pesos &P8!888.88'.

he Court a%rees with the findin%s of the 9>e#utive Jud%e but not to the re#ommended penalty.

A review of the re#ords and eviden#e presented by #omplainants shows that Atty. 4iapno indeed maintaineda law offi#e in 8in%ayen, Pan%asinan, just beside the law offi#e of one of the #omplainants, Atty. 9liBabethu%ade. 6t was also proven that Atty. 4iapno notariBed several instruments with an e>pired notarial#ommission outside the territorial jurisdi#tion of the #ommissionin% #ourt. 4e#tion --, Rule 666 of the 20Rules on +otarial Pra#ti#e provides that #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Jurisdi#tion and erm A person #ommissioned as notary publi# may perform notarial a#ts in any pla#ewithin the territorial jurisdi#tion of the #ommissionin% #ourt for a period of two &2' years #ommen#in% the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


first day of January of the year in whi#h the #ommissionin% is made, unless earlier revo5ed or the notarypubli# has resi%ned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Knder the rule, only persons who are #ommissioned as notary publi# may perform notarial a#ts within theterritorial jurisdi#tion of the #ourt whi#h %ranted the #ommission. Clearly, Atty. 4iapno #ould not performnotarial fun#tions in 8in%ayen, +atividad and "a%upan City of the Provin#e of Pan%asinan sin#e he was not#ommissioned in the said pla#es to perform su#h a#t.

ime and a%ain, this Court has stressed that notariBation is not an empty, meanin%less and routine a#t. 6t isinvested with substantive publi# interest that only those who are @ualified or authoriBed may a#t as notariespubli#.-2 6t must be emphasiBed that the a#t of notariBation by a notary publi# #onverts a private do#umentinto a publi# do#ument ma5in% that do#ument admissible in eviden#e without further proof of authenti#ity. Anotarial do#ument is by law entitled to full faith and #redit upon its fa#e, and for this reason, notaries publi#must observe with utmost #are the basi# re@uirements in the performan#e of their duties.

Dy performin% notarial a#ts without the ne#essary #ommission from the #ourt, Atty. 4iapno violated not onlyhis oath to obey the laws parti#ularly the Rules on +otarial Pra#ti#e but also Canons - and 7 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility whi#h pros#ribes all lawyers from en%a%in% in unlawful, dishonest, immoral orde#eitful #ondu#t and dire#ts them to uphold the inte%rity and di%nity of the le%al profession, at all times.-

6n a plethora of #ases, the Court has subje#ted lawyers to dis#iplinary a#tion for notariBin% do#umentsoutside their territorial jurisdi#tion or with an e>pired #ommission. 6n the #ase of #unga v. Vira ,-0 a lawyerwas suspended by the Court for three &' years for notariBin% an instrument without a #ommission.6n Koreta v. Simpliciano,-? the respondent was li5ewise suspended from the pra#ti#e of law for a period oftwo &2' years and was permanently barred from bein% #ommissioned as a notary publi# for notariBin%several do#uments after the e>piration of his #ommission. 6n the more re#ent #ase of a-uindanum v.Luintana,-! the Court suspended a lawyer for si> &;' months and was dis@ualified from bein% #ommissionedas notary publi# for a period of two &F' years be#ause he notariBed do#uments outside the area of his#ommission, and with an e>pired #ommission.

Considerin% that Atty. 4iapno has been proven to have performed notarial wor5 in 8i%ayen, +atividad and"a%upan City in the provin#e of Pan%asinan without the re@uisite #ommission, the Court finds there#ommended penalty insuffi#ient. 6nstead, Atty. 4iapno must be barred from bein% #ommissioned as notarypubli# permanently and suspended from the pra#ti#e of law for a period of two &F' years.

ReB Complaints against Att. Santos and Att. veln

6n a letter,-7

dated July 2, 2-, Jud%e Ros informed the Court that he #ould not have #omplied with theJune , 2 and Au%ust 0, 2 orders of the Court be#ause he was no lon%er the 9>e#utive Jud%e of theRC(=anila at that time. o date, no formal investi%ation has been #ondu#ted on the alle%ed violation ofAtty. 4antos and the reported ille%al a#tivities of a #ertain Atty. 9velyn.

With respe#t to the #omplaints a%ainst Atty. 4antos and a #ertain Atty. 9velyn, the Cler5 of Court is orderedto R9("/CL9 the same as separate administrative #ases.

he in#umbent 9>e#utive Jud%e of the RC(=anila, whether permanent or in a#tin% #apa#ity, is ordered to#ondu#t a formal investi%ation on the matter and to submit his Report and Re#ommendation within si>ty&!' days from re#eipt of #opy of this de#ision.

6#EREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. 4iapno, Jr. is hereby S$S;ENDED from the pra#ti#e of law for two&2' years and ARRED ;ERANENTL from bein% #ommissioned as +otary Publi#, effe#tive upon hisre#eipt of a #opy of this de#ision.

8et #opies of this de#ision be furnished all the #ourts of the land throu%h the /ffi#e of the CourtAdministrator, the 6nte%rated Dar of the Philippines, the /ffi#e of the Dar Confidant, and be re#orded in thepersonal files of the respondent.

With respe#t to the #omplaints a%ainst Atty. Pedro 8. 4antos and a #ertain Atty. 9velyn, the Cler5 of Court isordered to RE=DOC:ET them as separate administrative #ases. he 9>e#utive Jud%e of the Re%ional rialCourt, =anila, is ordered to #ondu#t a formal investi%ation on the matter and to submit his Report andRe#ommendation within si>ty &!' days from re#eipt of a #opy of this de#ision.

SO ORDERED.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


SECOND DIVISION

A.. No. ;=11=2940, January 21, 2015

J$DGE GODOFREDO . A$L, JR., Complainant , v. GEORGE E. VIAJAR, S#ERIFF IV, REGIONALTRIAL CO$RT, RANC# 4, $T$AN CIT, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

CAR;IO, J."

T)& Ca&

Defore the Court is an administrative #ase for "ishonesty, )rave Abuse of Authority, Ksurpation of Judi#ialAuthority, and =alfeasan#e and )raft and Corruption filed by Jud%e )odofredo D. Abul, Jr. &#omplainant' ofthe Re%ional rial Court, Dran#h 0, Dutuan City, a%ainst 4heriff 6* )eor%e 9. *iajar &respondent'. #ralawred

T)& An(&&-&n( Fa(

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Complainant alle%ed that on 2! =ar#h 2-, he issued a Writ of 9>e#ution &writ' in Civil Case +o. $?entitled %elipe 3orme! Sr.! Adela 3orme! Crisanta 3orme,3ado and %elipe Saludo v. %ast Cargo 'ransportCorporation and Rom strella. A##ordin% to #omplainant, respondent re#eived the writ on the same day itwas issued but he withheld the writ and filed the 4heriffs Return of 4ervi#e only on 2- June 2-.Complainant further alle%ed that respondent arro%ated judi#ial powers upon himself by re#eivin% P!$,from the jud%ment #reditor and failin% to deposit it to the #ourt. Complainant also alle%ed that respondent

submitted an unreasonably hi%h 4heriffs fees, throu%h padded and ima%inary #har%es, as #an be seen fromthe 4tatement of 8i@uidation he submitted whi#h #ontained the followin% #har%es ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

&a' wo P?,$, without re#eiptsE&b' Publi#ation of 4heriffs +oti#e of 4ale P-?,, published without the re@uired raffleE&#' 8iftin% of levy P?,, without re#eiptE&d' Representation allowan#es P0,?E and&e' Withheld amount from the jud%ment #reditor P2$,2!.

Complainant alle%ed that respondent refused to follow the Rules of Court when he failed to demand paymentdire#tly from the jud%ment #reditor. Respondent too5 it upon himself to ma5e a determination that the jud%ment #reditor in Civil Case +o. $?, 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation, is the same as 1ast Car%o8o%isti#s Corporation. 6n addition, respondent mailed a #opy of the writ of e>e#ution to the jud%ment debtorin Cebu City instead of servin% the writ. 3e then pro#eeded to e>e#ute a levy %arnishment and #ondu#tedan ille%al sale. Dy purposely not %ivin% noti#e to the jud%ment debtor and its #ounsel, respondent deprivedsome of the parties of their ri%ht to parti#ipate. Respondent alle%edly #ondu#ted a simulated biddin%,awarded the property to the jud%ment #reditor, re#eived P$, for the bid but did not deposit the moneywith the Cler5 of Court. /n -? June 2-, respondent e>e#uted a 4heriffs Certifi#ate of Redemption witha##ompanyin% a#5nowled%ment re#eipt whi#h showed that he #har%ed the jud%ment debtor additionale>penses of P0, as a#tual e>penses and P0, as 4heriffs fees. Respondent then allowed the jud%ment debtor to withdraw the amount of P0!,!07 from him and only informed the trial #ourt throu%h anaddendum of Return of 4ervi#e submitted on 20 June 2-. he trial #ourt ordered respondent to depositthe P$, paid by the hi%hest bidder to the #ourt but he refused and only %ave a va%ue e>planation.

6n his #omment, respondent denied that he deliberately withheld the ma5in% of the return of the writ. 3ealle%ed that on 20 =ay 2-, he pro#eeded with the au#tion sale sin#e there was no si%n that the jud%mentdebtor would settle its obli%ation. /n 2? =ay 2-, he delivered P?7?, out of the bid amount ofP$, to the jud%ment #reditor to satisfy the obli%ation. Respondent alle%ed that on June 2-,eren#e 4aavedra &4aavedra', a representative of 1ast Car%o 8o%isti#s Corporation who #laimed to alsorepresent 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation, #ame to the trial #ourt and informed him that he wanted toredeem the property. Respondent alle%ed that 4aavedra returned on -? June 2-, made a proposal to

satisfy the jud%ment amount and the 4heriffs e>penses, and he re#eived the amount on the same day.

Respondent further alle%ed that the amount of P!, as estimated e>penses was approved by#omplainant be#ause he was supposed to %o to Cebu City to serve the writ. 3owever, he #han%ed his plansbe#ause he learned that the jud%ment #reditor still had property in Dutuan City. 3e added that the jud%ment#reditor opted not to deposit the estimated amount of e>penses and instead personally handed it to him.Respondent further stated that it is dis#retionary upon #omplainant whether to approve his e>penses.Respondent denied that he made a judi#ial pronoun#ement that 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation is thesame as 1ast Car%o 8o%isti#s Corporation. 3e #laimed that he observed the #han%e in the #orporate name on-? Au%ust -7 and that #omplainant was duly informed when he submitted his 4heriffs Return of 4ervi#e.Respondent denied that he deliberately refused to deposit the amount of P$,. 3e added thatP?7?, was already delivered to the jud%ment #reditor. 3e stressed that he did not re#eive a sin%le#entavo for his personal benefit.

6n its Resolution dated -? June 2--, this Court re(do#5eted the #omplaint as a re%ular administrative

#omplaint and referred the #ase to the 9>e#utive Jud%e of the Re%ional rial Court of Dutuan City, Dran#h ,for investi%ation, report and re#ommendation.#ralawred

T)& R&*or( an- R&o&n-a(+on o/ ()& E?&u(+& Ju-&

After #ondu#tin% his investi%ation, 9>e#utive Jud%e 1ran#is#o 1. =a#lan% found that respondent #ommittedthe followin% violations

-. Respondent did not enfor#e the writ by personally %oin% to Cebu City. 6nstead, respondent mailed a #opyof the writ to 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


2. Respondent mailed to 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation not only the writ but also the noti#e of levy ofe>e#ution. As su#h, 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation was not %iven an option to sele#t what personal or realproperty would be levied by respondent. Respondent was not able to show that 1ast Car%o ransportCorporation has no ban5 a##ount or other personal property that would justify the immediate levy on its realproperty.

. Respondent did not immediately return the writ after the jud%ment had been satisfied in part or in full.6nstead, he submitted the Report on 2- June 2-, or almost three months after the issuan#e of the writ on2! =ar#h 2-.

0. Respondent did not present any eviden#e that the written +oti#e of 4ale had been published on#e a wee5for two #onse#utive wee5s in one newspaper. Respondent presented one 4heriffs +oti#e of 4ale. 3e alsopresented an offi#ial re#eipt issued by he Peoples )uardian showin% payment for P-?, on 2? =ay 2-but the publi#ation was dated 2$ April 2-. Respondent li5ewise failed to %ive a #opy of the +oti#e of 4aleto 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation.

?. 6nstead of turnin% over the payment to the Cler5 of Court for delivery to the jud%ment #reditor,respondent too5 it upon himself to deliver the bid amount. 3e also made a #on#lusion that 1ast Car%oransport Corporation #han%ed its name to 1ast Car%o 8o%isti#s Corporation.

!. Respondent #har%ed an e>orbitant amount of sheriffs e>penses of P!$,2! even if he did not a#tually %o

to Cebu City. 9ven the a#tual e>penses refle#ted on the 4heriffs Return, amountin% to P0,, weree>orbitant. Respondent also failed to e>plain why he demanded P0!,!27 from 1ast Car%o ransportCorporation after the Certifi#ate of 4ale was issued.

7. 6n his letter dated - July 2-, respondent in#luded the amount of P-7!,--2.! alle%edly representin%lawyers e>penses from ! +ovember 2- to ! Au%ust 27. 3e also admitted that he %ave money to theRe%ister of "eeds and the Assessors /ffi#e to fa#ilitate the release of the papers.

$. Respondent approved the Certifi#ate of 4ale instead of %ivin% the same to the #ourt for approval.

. Respondent failed to show that he Peoples )uardian had been awarded the ri%ht to publish the +oti#e of 4ale throu%h a raffle #ondu#ted by the /ffi#e of the Cler5 of Court.

-. Respondent failed to submit re#eipts for the followin% amountsChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

a. ?,$E

b. P?,E#. P0,?Ed. P2$,!2E ande. P0,.

he investi%atin% jud%e noted that respondent initially admitted that he had been remiss in the performan#eof his duties and that he e>pressed willin%ness to a##ept any dis#iplinary a#tion. After some time,respondent re#anted and denied all the #har%es a%ainst him. he investi%atin% jud%e re#ommended thatrespondent be imposed the #orrespondin% san#tions by this Court. #ralawred

T)& R&*or( an- R&o&n-a(+on o/ ()& OCA

6n a =emorandum dated 2$ Au%ust 2-, the /ffi#e of the Court Administrator &/CA' a%reed with thefindin%s of the investi%atin% jud%e that respondent did not follow the basi# pro#edure for implementin% a

writ of e>e#ution.

he /CA stressed that respondent should have personally demanded the payment of the prin#ipal obli%ationfrom the jud%ment debtor. 6f, upon verifi#ation, respondent noti#ed that the name of the #orporationappeared to have been #han%ed, he should have in@uired from the jud%ment debtor if 1ast Car%o ransportCorporation is the same as 1ast Car%o 8o%isti#s Corporation. 6n addition, the /CA stated that respondentfailed to show that he a##orded the jud%ment debtor the option to #hoose whi#h amon% its personal or realproperties may be levied upon.

he /CA noted that respondent seemed unaware of the rule that he has to ma5e a report to the #ourt even

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


if the writ is not satisfied in full. 3e did not ma5e periodi# reports on the status of the implementation of thewrit of e>e#ution. he /CA li5ewise found that respondent failed to show proof that he Peoples )uardianwas awarded the ri%ht to publish the +oti#e of 4ale throu%h a raffle #ondu#ted by the /ffi#e of the Cler5 ofCourt. Respondent #ould not prove the fa#t of publi#ation be#ause he #ould not present a #opy of thenewspaper #lippin% where the +oti#e of 4ale was published and the Affidavit of Publi#ation by the publisher.1urther, the /ffi#ial Re#eipt for P-?, that respondent presented was dated 2? =ay 2- but the dates ofpubli#ation were on 2, and -! =ay 2-.

he /CA found that respondent was %uilty of %rave mis#ondu#t and dishonesty. he /CA re#ommended thatrespondent be imposed the penalty of suspension from offi#e without pay for si> months. 3owever,#onsiderin% that respondent had already retired from the servi#e, the /CA further re#ommended that theamount #orrespondin% to respondents salary for si> months should instead be dedu#ted from his retirementbenefits.#ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()+ Cour(

We adopt the findin%s of the /CA and in#rease the re#ommended penalty.

We must stress on#e a%ain that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justi#e.- As a%ents ofthe law, they are #alled upon to dis#har%e their duties with due #are and utmost dili%en#e.2 6n servin% the#ourts writs and pro#esses and implementin% its orders, they #annot afford to err without affe#tin% the

inte%rity of their offi#e and the effi#ient administration of justi#e.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6n this #ase, respondent had been remiss in performin% his responsibilities.

1irst, respondent violated a basi# rule by failin% to do his ministerial duty to ma5e periodi# reports on thewrit. 4e#tion -0, Rule of the Revised Rules of Court provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C. -0. Return of (rit of e?ecution. ( he writ of e>e#ution shall be returnable to the #ourt issuin% itimmediately after the jud%ment has been satisfied in part or in full. 6f the jud%ment #annot be satisfied infull within thirty &' days after his re#eipt of the writ, the offi#er shall report to the #ourt and state thereason therefor. 4u#h writ shall #ontinue in effe#t durin% the period within whi#h the jud%ment may beenfor#ed by motion. he offi#er shall ma5e a report to the #ourt every thirty &' days on the pro#eedin%sta5en thereon until the jud%ment is satisfied in full, or its effe#tivity e>pires. he returns or periodi# reportsshall set forth the whole of the pro#eedin%s ta5en, and shall be filed with the #ourt and #opies thereofpromptly furnished the parties.

6n this #ase, the writ of e>e#ution was issued on 2! =ar#h 2-. Respondent re#eived it on the same day.Respondent made his Report on 2- June 2-. Respondent i%nored the dire#tive of the Rules re@uirin% himto ma5e a report to the #ourt every days on the pro#eedin%s ta5en on the writ until the jud%ment issatisfied in full, or when the effe#tivity of the writ e>pires. We #annot a##ept respondents e>planation thatthe main reason for his failure to ma5e his report was that there were still a#tivities to be underta5en in thepro#ess of his implementation of the writ. he Rule is #lear. 9ven when the jud%ment has not yet been fullysatisfied, respondent is mandated to submit his periodi# report to the #ourt. Respondent failed to do so.

Respondent li5ewise failed to show that he personally demanded from the jud%ment debtor the immediatepayment of the full amount stated in the writ of e>e#ution, and of all lawful fees. 6n addition, respondentfailed to show that he a##orded the jud%ment debtor the option to #hoose whi#h amon% its real or personalproperties would be levied upon. 4e#tion &b' of Rule states that ;Iif the jud%ment obli%or #annot pay allor part of the obli%ation in #ash, #ertified ban5 #he#5 or other mode of payment a##eptable to the jud%ment

obli%ee, the offi#er shall levy upon the properties of the jud%ment obli%or of every 5ind and naturewhatsoever whi#h may be disposed of for value and not otherwise e>empt from e>e#ution %ivin% the latterthe option to immediately #hoose whi#h property or part thereof may be levied upon, suffi#ient to satisfy the jud%ment.< 6n this #ase, respondent just levied upon the property of the jud%ment debtor withoutdemandin% payment of the jud%ment debt, and without %ivin% the jud%ment debtor the option to #hoosewhi#h of its properties may be levied upon.

6n addition, respondents duty to e>e#ute a jud%ment is ministerial and he need not loo5 outside the plainmeanin% of the writ of e>e#ution.0 When a sheriff is fa#ed with an ambi%uous e>e#ution order, pruden#e andreasonableness di#tate that he see5 #larifi#ation from the jud%e.? When #onfronted with the @uestion of

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


whether 1ast Car%o ransport Corporation is the same as 1ast Car%o 8o%isti#s Corporation, respondentshould have #onsulted with the jud%e. 6nstead, he de#ided on his own that they are one and the same#orporation. Respondent relied on the words of Atty. Audie Dernabe, #ounsel of the jud%ment #reditor,!whenhis proper #ourse of a#tion should have been to see5 #larifi#ation from the jud%e.

As re%ards the publi#ation of the sale, we a%ree with the /CA that respondent failed to show that hePeoples )uardian was sele#ted by raffle in a##ordan#e with 4e#tion -?&#', Rule of the -7 Rules of Civil

Pro#edure. Respondent failed to present a #opy of the newspaper #lippin% where the +oti#e of 4ale waspublished as well as the affidavit of publi#ation by the publisher. 1urther, the offi#ial re#eipt presented byrespondent was dated 2? =ay 2- but the +oti#e of 4ale was supposed to have been published on 2, and-! =ay 2-.

Respondent also admitted that he a##ommodated the jud%ment #reditors re@uest to in#lude the amount ofP-7!,--2.! as lawyers e>penses whi#h was not part of the de#ision. Respondent e>plained#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

> > > the jud%ment #reditor as5ed this amount to be in#luded, to ta5e #han#es that it mi%ht Ibe a##eptedby the jud%ment debtor, and to %ive the benefit of the doubt, the undersi%ned 4heriff a##ommodated thesaid #laim, thou%h to his personal 5nowled%e it is not a valid #laim sin#e it was not part of the jud%mentamount as mentioned in the writ of e>e#utionI.7

A%ain, respondent went beyond the terms of the writ of e>e#ution althou%h he 5new that the jud%ment

#reditors #laim was not valid.

As re%ards the 4heriffs e>penses, respondent himself admitted that some of the amount he in#luded did nothave re#eipts and were, therefore, not justified.$


he /CA found respondent %uilty of %rave mis#ondu#t and dishonesty in the performan#e of his duties,whi#h, #onsiderin% the #ir#umstan#es, we deem to be serious dishonesty. Doth offenses are punishable withdismissal from the servi#e. 3owever, in re#ommendin% the imposable penalty, the /CA #onsidered thefollowin% as miti%atin% #ir#umstan#es in favor of respondent &-' this is respondents first offenseE &2'respondent had been in the servi#e for -? yearsE and &' humanitarian reasons. hus, the /CAre#ommended that the penalty of suspension from offi#e without salary for si> months should instead bemeted on respondent. 6n view of respondents retirement from the servi#e, the /CA further re#ommendedthat the amount #orrespondin% to si> months salary be instead dedu#ted from respondents retirementbenefits. We modify the re#ommended penalty by in#reasin% the suspension from si> months to one year.Considerin% that respondent already retired from the servi#e, the amount #orrespondin% to one years salary

should instead be dedu#ted from respondents retirement benefits.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, we find )eor%e 9. *iajar G$ILT of %rave mis#ondu#t and serious dishonesty and imposeupon him the penalty of S$S;ENSION from offi#e without pay for one year. 6n view of *iajars retirementfrom the servi#e, we dire#t the 1inan#e "ivision, 1inan#ial =ana%ement /ffi#e of the /CA to dedu#t theamount #orrespondin% to his one years salary from the retirement benefits due him.


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015

S;O$SES JOSE O. GAT$SLAO AND ERILA LEONILA LISIACO=GAT$SLAO, Petitioners, v. LEO RA

V. ANSON, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J."

Petitioners spouses Jose /. )atuslao and 9rmila 8eonila 8imsia#o()atuslao &petitioners' are assailin% the"e#ember $, 2- /rder of the Re%ional rial Court &RC' of Da#olod City, Dran#h 0 in Cad. Case +o. (2$2 whi#h %ranted respondent 8eo Ray2 Qansons &respondent' ? Parte =otion for the 6ssuan#e of Writ of

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Possession over the properties bein% o##upied by petitioners, as well as the 1ebruary 2!, 2- RC/rderdenyin% petitioners motion for re#onsideration thereto.

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner 9rmila 8eonila 8imsia#o()atuslao is the dau%hter of the late 1eli#isimo 8imsia#o &8imsia#o' whodied intestate on 1ebruary 7, -$. 8imsia#o was the re%istered owner of two par#els of land with

improvements in the City of Da#olod des#ribed as 8ots - and --, Dlo#5 $ of the subdivision plan Psd($?77and #overed by ransfer Certifi#ates of itle &C' +os. (020 and (20-.?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

8imsia#o mort%a%ed the said lots alon% with the house standin% thereon to Philippine +ational Dan5 &P+D'.Kpon 8imsia#os failure to pay, P+D e>trajudi#ially fore#losed on the mort%a%e and #aused the propertiessale at a publi# au#tion on June 20, -- where it emer%ed as the hi%hest bidder. When the one(yearredemption period e>pired without 8imsia#os estate redeemin% the properties, P+D #aused the #onsolidationof titles in its name. Kltimately, the Re%istry of "eeds of Da#olod City #an#elled C +os. (02 and (20- and in lieu thereof issued C +os. ($$-$! and ($$-7 in P+Ds name on /#tober 2?, 2!.

/n +ovember -, 2!, a "eed of Absolute 4ale$ was e>e#uted by P+D #onveyin% the subje#t properties infavor of respondent. As a #onse@uen#e thereof, the Re%istry of "eeds of Da#olod City issued C +os. (---2? and (---2!- in respondents name in lieu of P+Ds titles.

hen, as a re%istered owner in fee simple of the #ontested properties, respondent filed with the RC an ?,

Parte =otion for Writ of Possession-- pursuant to 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -?,-2 as amended by A#t +o. 0--$&A#t +o. -?, as amended',- do#5eted as Cad. Case +o. (2$2.

6n their /pposition,-0 petitioners ar%ued that the respondent is not entitled to the issuan#e of an e?, partewrit of possession under 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -? sin#e he was not the buyer of the subje#t propertiesat the publi# au#tion sale and only pur#hased the same throu%h a subse@uent sale made by P+D. +ot bein%the pur#haser at the publi# au#tion sale, respondent #annot file and be %ranted an e? parte motion for a writof possession. Petitioners also asserted that the intestate estate of 8imsia#o has already instituted an a#tionfor annulment of fore#losure of mort%a%e and au#tion sale affe#tin% the #ontested properties.-? hey ar%uedthat the e>isten#e of the said #ivil suit bars the issuan#e of the writ of possession and that whatever ri%htsand interests respondent may have a#@uired from P+D by virtue of the sale are still subje#t to the out#omeof the said #ase.

'ulin* o! the 'e*ional %rial Court

he RC %ranted the issuan#e of the writ of possession in an /rder-! dated "e#ember $, 2. 6t #ited theCourts pronoun#ement in China 4an)ing Corporation v. o*ada,-7vi* #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he Court re#o%niBes the ri%hts a#@uired by the pur#haser of the fore#losed property at the publi# au#tionsale upon the #onsolidation of his title when no timely redemption of the property was made, > > >.

6t is thus settled that the buyer in a fore#losure sale be#omes the absolute owner of the property pur#hasedif it is not redeemed durin% the period of one year after the re%istration of the sale. As su#h, he is entitled tothe possession of the said property and #an demand it at any time followin% the #onsolidation of ownershipin his name and the issuan#e to him of a new transfer #ertifi#ate of title. > > > Possession of the land thenbe#omes an absolute ri%ht of the pur#haser as #onfirmed owner. Kpon proper appli#ation and proof of title,the issuan#e of the writ of possession be#omes a ministerial duty of the #ourt.

he pur#haser, therefore, in the publi# au#tion sale of a fore#losed property is entitled to a writ of possession

> > >.

-$

P+D, therefore, as the absolute owner of the properties is entitled to a writ of possession. And sin#erespondent pur#hased the properties from P+D, the former has ne#essarily stepped into the shoes of thelatter. /therwise stated, respondent, by subro%ation, has the ri%ht to pursue P+Ds #laims a%ainstpetitioners as thou%h they were his own.

he dispositive portion of the above /rder reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


W39R91/R9, premises #onsidered, the Court hereby issues a writ of possession in favor of movant 8eo Ray*. Qanson orderin% 4pouses Jose and =ila )atuslao, their heirs, assi%ns, su##essors(in(interest, a%ents,representatives andGor any and all other o##upants or persons #laimin% any interest or title of the subje#tproperty to deliver the possession of said property to the herein movantG petitioner.

4/ /R"9R9".-

Petitioners moved for re#onsideration2 whi#h was denied in an /rder2- dated 1ebruary 2!, 2-, thus #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, the =otion for Re#onsideration filed by /ppositors is hereby "9+69". hus, the /rder dated"e#ember $, 2 stands.

4/ /R"9R9".22

Respondent on =ar#h -, 2- moved to e>e#ute the possessory writ2 while petitioners on April -?, 2-filed with this Court the present Petition for Review on Certiorari .

/n 4eptember , 2-, the RC issued an /rder20 dire#tin% the implementation of the writ. And per4heriffs Return of 4ervi#e,2? the same was fully implemented on =ar#h -0, 2--. #ralawred

Iu&

-. A##ordin% to petitioners, the pendin% a#tion for annulment of fore#losure of mort%a%e and the#orrespondin% sale at publi# au#tion of the subje#t properties operates as a bar to the issuan#e of awrit of possessionE

2. Claimin% violation of their ri%ht to due pro#ess, petitioners li5ewise assert that as they were notparties to the fore#losure and are, thus, stran%ers or third parties thereto, they may not be evi#tedby a mere e? parte writ of possessionE and

. 8astly, petitioners ar%ue that respondent, a mere pur#haser of the #ontested properties by way of ane%otiated sale between him and P+D, may not avail of a writ of possession pursuant to 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -?, as amended, as he is not the pur#haser at the publi# au#tion sale. Petitioners further#ontend that respondent has no ri%ht to avail of the writ even by way of subro%ation.

Our Ru'+n

Preliminarily, we note that petitioners dire#t resort to this Court from the assailed /rders of the RC violatesthe rule on hierar#hy of #ourts. heir remedy lies with the Court of Appeals. Considerin% however thelen%th of time this #ase has been pendin% and in view of our January 2!, 2-- Resolution2! %ivin% due#ourse to the Petition, we deem it proper to adjudi#ate the #ase on its merits.

he Petition is denied.

"t is settled that the issuance of a &rit ofPossession ma not be staed b a pendingaction for annulment of mortgage or theforeclosure itself.

6t is petitioners stand that the pendin% a#tion for annulment of fore#losure of mort%a%e and of the#orrespondin% sale at publi# au#tion of the subje#t properties operates as a bar to the issuan#e of a writ ofpossession.

he Court rules in the ne%ative. 4P" %amil Savings 4an)! "nc. v. 3olden Po(er Diesel Sales Center!"nc.27reiterates the lon%(standin% rule that #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I6t is settled that a pendin% a#tion for annulment of mort%a%e or fore#losure sale does not stay the issuan#eof the writ of possession. he trial #ourt, where the appli#ation for a writ of possession is filed, does not

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


need to loo5 into the validity of the mort%a%e or the manner of its fore#losure. he pur#haser is entitled to awrit of possession without prejudi#e to the out#ome of the pendin% annulment #ase.

his is in line with the ministerial #hara#ter of the possessory writ. hus, in 4an) of the Philippine "slands v.'arampi!2$ it was held#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

To (r& ()& +n+(&r+a' )ara(&r o/ ()& %r+( o/ *o&+on, the Court has disallowed injun#tion toprohibit its issuan#e, just as it has held that +( +uan& ay no( 3& (ay&- 3y a *&n-+n a(+on /orannu'&n( o/ or(a& or ()& /or&'our& +(&'/.

C'&ar'y ()&n, un(+' ()& /or&'our& a'& o/ ()& *ro*&r(y +n u&(+on + annu''&- 3y a our( o/o*&(&n( ur+-+(+on, ()& +uan& o/ a %r+( o/ *o&+on r&a+n ()& +n+(&r+a' -u(y o/ ()&(r+a' our(. T)& a& + (ru& %+() +( +*'&&n(a(+on> o()&r%+&, ()& %r+( %+'' 3& a u&'& *a*&r

u-&n( a r&u'( +n++a' (o ()& an-a(& o/ A( No. 15 (o &( *o&+on +n ()& *ur)a&r+&-+a(&'y.2&9mphases supplied'

Clearly, petitioners ar%ument is devoid of merit.

Petitioners are not strangers or third parties to the foreclosure saleI the(ere not deprived of due process.

4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -?, as amended, sets forth the followin% pro#edure in the availment of and issuan#eof a writ of possession in #ases of e>trajudi#ial fore#losures, vi* #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ 7. 6n any sale made under the provisions of this A#t, the pur#haser may petition the Court of 1irst6nstan#e &Re%ional rial Court' of the provin#e or pla#e where the property or any part thereof is situated, to%ive him possession thereof durin% the redemption period, furnishin% bond in an amount e@uivalent to theuse of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in #ase it be shown that the salewas made without violatin% the mort%a%e or without #omplyin% with the re@uirements of this A#t. 4u#hpetition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an e> parte motion in the re%istration or #adastralpro#eedin%s if the property is re%istered, or in spe#ial pro#eedin%s in the #ase of property re%istered underthe =ort%a%e 8aw or under se#tion one hundred and ninety(four of the Administrative Code, or of any otherreal property en#umbered with a mort%a%e duly re%istered in the offi#e of any re%ister of deeds ina##ordan#e with any e>istin% law, and in ea#h #ase the #ler5 of the #ourt shall, upon the filin% of su#hpetition, #olle#t the fees spe#ified in para%raph eleven of se#tion one hundred and fourteen of A#t +umbered1our hundred and ninety(si>, as amended by A#t +umbered wenty(ei%ht hundred and si>ty(si>, and the#ourt shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of theprovin#e in whi#h the property is situated, who shall e>e#ute said order immediately.

Althou%h the above provision #learly pertains to a writ of possession availed of and issued within theredemption period of the fore#losure sale, the same pro#edure also applies to a situation where a pur#haseris see5in% possession of the fore#losed property bou%ht at the publi# au#tion sale after the redemptionperiod has e>pired without redemption havin% been made. he only differen#e is that in the latter #ase, nobond is re@uired therefor, as held in China 4an)ing Corporation v. o*ada,- thus#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6t is thus settled that the buyer in a fore#losure sale be#omes the absolute owner of the property pur#hasedif it is not redeemed durin% the period of one year after the re%istration of the sale. As su#h, he is entitled tothe possession of the said property and #an demand it at any time followin% the #onsolidation of ownershipin his name and the issuan#e to him of a new transfer #ertifi#ate of title. T)& 3uy&r an +n /a( -&an-*o&+on o/ ()& 'an- &&n -ur+n ()& r&-&*(+on *&r+o- &?&*( ()a( )& )a (o *o( a 3on- +naor-an& %+() S&(+on 7 o/ A( No. 15, a a&n-&-. No u) 3on- + r&u+r&- a/(&r ()&r&-&*(+on *&r+o- +/ ()& *ro*&r(y + no( r&-&&&-. > > >2 &9mphasis supplied'

Kpon the e>piration of the period to redeem and no redemption was made, the pur#haser, as #onfirmedowner, has the absolute ri%ht to possess the land and the issuan#e of the writ of possession be#omes aministerial duty of the #ourt upon proper appli#ation and proof of title.


+evertheless, where the e>trajudi#ially fore#losed real property is in the possession of a third party who isholdin% the same adversely to the jud%ment debtor or mort%a%or, the RCs duty to issue a writ of

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


possession in favor of the pur#haser of said real property #eases to be ministerial and, as su#h, may nolon%er pro#eed e? parte.0 6n su#h a #ase, the trial #ourt must order a hearin% to determine the nature ofthe adverse possession.? 1or this e>#eption to apply, however, it is not enou%h that the property is in thepossession of a third party, the property must also be held by the third party adversel to the Hudgmentdebtor or mortgagor!! su#h as a #o(owner, a%ri#ultural tenant or usufru#tuary.7


6n this #ase, petitioners do not fall under any of the above e>amples of su#h a third party holdin% the

subje#t properties adversely to the mort%a%orE nor is their #laim to their ri%ht of possession analo%ous tothe fore%oin% situations. Admittedly, they are the mort%a%or 8imsia#os heirs. 6t was pre#isely be#ause of8imsia#os death that petitioners obtained the ri%ht to possess the subje#t properties and, as su#h, are#onsidered transferees or su##essors(in(interest of the ri%ht of possession of the latter. As 8imsia#ossu##essors(in(interest, petitioners merely stepped into his shoes and are, thus, #ompelled not only toa#5nowled%e but, more importantly, to respe#t the mort%a%e he had earlier e>e#uted in favor ofrespondent.$ hey #annot effe#tively assert that their ri%ht of possession is adverse to that of 8imsia#o asthey do not have an independent ri%ht of possession other than what they a#@uired from him. +ot bein%third parties who have a ri%ht #ontrary to that of the mort%a%or, the trial #ourt was thus justified in issuin%the writ and in orderin% its implementation.

Petitioners #laim that their ri%ht to due pro#ess was violated by the mere issuan#e of the writ of possessionmust li5ewise fail. As e>plained, petitioners were not o##upyin% the properties adversely to the mort%a%or,hen#e, a writ of possession may be issued e? parte. And pre#isely be#ause of this e? partenature of thepro#eedin%s no noti#e is needed to be served0 upon them. 6t has been stressed time and a%ain that ;the e?

parte nature of the pro#eedin% does not deny due pro#ess to the petitioners be#ause the issuan#e of the writof possession does not prevent a separate #ase for annulment of mort%a%e and fore#losure sale.< 0- Conse@uently, the RC may %rant the petition even without petitioners parti#ipation. +evertheless, even ifthe pro#eedin%s in this #ase was supposed to be e? parte, the re#ords of the #ase would show thatpetitioners side on this #ontroversy was a#tually heard as eviden#ed by the numerous pleadin%s02 filed bythem in the lower #ourt. 6n fa#t, in its July 27, 2 /rder,0 the RC e>pressly dire#ted respondent, ;inobservan#e of e@uity and fair play > > > to furnish Ipetitioners with a #opy of his motionGpetition and toshow > > > proof of #omplian#e thereof > > >.< 00 hen and now, the Court holds that a party #annot invo5edenial of due pro#ess when he was %iven an opportunity to present his side.0?


Respondent is entitled to theissuance of (rit of possession.

Petitioners insist that respondent is not entitled to the issuan#e of the writ of possession under 4e#tion 7 ofA#t +o. -? as he is only a buyer of the subje#t properties in a #ontra#t of sale subse@uently e>e#uted in

his favor by the a#tual pur#haser, P+D. o them, it is only the a#tual pur#haser of a property at the publi#au#tion sale who #an as5 the #ourt and be %ranted a writ of possession.

his ar%ument is not tenable. Respondent, as a transferee or su##essor(in(interest of P+D by virtue of the#ontra#t of sale between them, is #onsidered to have stepped into the shoes of P+D. As su#h, he isne#essarily entitled to avail of the provisions of 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -?, as amended, as if he is P+D. hisis apparent in the "eed of Absolute 4ale0! between the two, vi* #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

-. T)& V&n-or )&r&3y &'', (ran/&rH an- on&yH un(oH, an- +n /aor o/ ()&V&n-&&, an- ()& 'a((&r a+n an- u&or=+n=+n(&r&(, a'' o/ ()& /or&rr+)( an- (+('& (o, +n(&r&( an- *ar(++*a(+on +n ()& ;ro*&r(y on an ;A4 64, W39R964< basis. 6t is thus understood that the *endee has inspe#ted the Property and hasas#ertained its #ondition.

> > > >

. T)& V&n-or + &''+n on'y %)a(&&r r+)( an- (+('& (o, +n(&r&( an- *ar(++*a(+on+( )a au+r&- o&r ()& ;ro*&r(y, and the *endee hereby a#5nowled%es full 5nowled%eof the nature and e>tent of the *endors ri%hts and title to, Iand interests and parti#ipationin the Property.

0. > > > T)& V&n-&& /ur()&r ar&& (o un-&r(a&, a( +()+)&r &?*&n&, ()&&&(&n( o/ any ou*an( o/ ()& ;ro*&r(y.07 &9mphases in the ori%inal'

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


*erily, one of the ri%hts that P+D a#@uired as pur#haser of the subje#t properties at the publi# au#tion sale,whi#h it #ould validly #onvey by way of its subse@uent sale of the same to respondent, is the availment of awrit of possession. his #an be dedu#ed from the above(@uoted stipulation that 1t2he 1v2endee furtheragrees to underta)e! at ??? his e?pense! the eHectment of an occupant of the 1p2ropert. A##ordin%ly,respondent filed the #ontentious e> parte motion for a writ of possession to eje#t petitioners therefrom andta5e possession of the subje#t properties.

1urther, respondent may ri%htfully ta5e possession of the subje#t properties throu%h a writ of possession,even if he was not the a#tual buyer thereof at the publi# au#tion sale, in #onsonan#e with our rulin%inrmitaNo v. Paglas.0$ 6n the said #ase, therein respondent was petitioners lessee in a residential propertyowned by the latter. "urin% the lifetime of the lease, respondent learned that petitioner mort%a%ed thesubje#t property in favor of Charlie Qap &Qap' who eventually fore#losed the same. Qap was the pur#haserthereof in an e>trajudi#ial fore#losure sale. Respondent ultimately bou%ht the property from Qap. 3owever,it was stipulated in the deed of sale that the property was still subje#t to petitioners ri%ht of redemption.4ubse@uently and despite written demands to pay the amounts #orrespondin% to her monthly rental of thesubje#t property, respondent did not anymore pay rents. =eanwhile, petitioners period to redeem thefore#losed property e>pired on 1ebruary 2, 2-. 4everal months after, petitioner filed a #ase for unlawfuldetainer a%ainst respondent. When the #ase rea#hed this Court, it ruled that therein respondents basis fordenyin% petitioners #laim for rent was insuffi#ient as the latter, durin% the period for whi#h payment of rentwas bein% demanded, was still the owner of the fore#losed property. his is be#ause at that time, the periodof redemption has not yet e>pired. hus, petitioner was still entitled to the physi#al possession thereof

subje#t, however, to the pur#hasers ri%ht to petition the #ourt to %ive him possession and to file a bondpursuant to the provisions of 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -?, as amended. 3owever, after the e>piration of theredemption period without redemption havin% been made by petitioner, respondent be#ame the ownerthereof and #onsolidation of title be#omes a ri%ht. Dein% already then the owner, respondent be#ameentitled to possession. Conse@uently, petitioners eje#tment suit was held to have been rendered moot bythe e>piration of the period of redemption without petitioner redeemin% the properties. his is #onsiderin%that petitioner already lost his possessory ri%ht over the property after the e>piration of the said period.

Althou%h the main issue in rmitaNo was whether respondent was #orre#t in refusin% to pay rent topetitioner on the basis of her havin% bou%ht the latters fore#losed property from whom it was mort%a%ed,the #ase is enli%htenin% as it a#5nowled%ed respondents ri%ht, as a subse@uent buyer of the properties fromthe a#tual pur#haser of the same in the publi# au#tion sale, to possess the property after the e>piration ofthe period to redeem sans any redemption. *erily, rmitaNo demonstrates the appli#ability of the provisionsof 4e#tion 7 of A#t +o. -? to su#h a subse@uent pur#haser li5e respondent in the present #ase.

All told, the Court affirms the RCs issuan#e of the Writ of Possession in favor of respondent. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. he "e#ember $, 2 and 1ebruary 2!, 2- /rders of theRe%ional rial Court of Da#olod City, Dran#h 0 in Cad. Case +o. (2$2 are AFFIRED.


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 200, January 21, 2015

;EO;LE OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Plaintiff,Appellee, v. DOINGO DILLA ;A$LAR , Accused,Appellant .

R E S O L $ T I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J."

Appellant "omin%o "illa y Paular was #har%ed with the #rime of murder for the death of his brother, Pepito"illa Paular &Pepito'. Dased on the eviden#e presented by the prose#ution, it was shown that at around? in the afternoon of July 22, 2, at 4itio 6laud, 3imaao, Pili, Camarines 4ur, Pepito was wor5in% on his

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


farm when appellant suddenly appeared and shot the vi#tim with a %un hittin% him on his left thi%h. hevi#tim mana%ed to run but was overta5en by appellant who then stabbed him with a bolo. he son of thevi#tim, Pepito Jr., and =ary Jane Rene%ado &Rene%ado', witnessed the in#ident.

Appellant presented a different version. 3e #laimed that it was Pepito who was the a%%ressor. 3e narratedthat Pepito went to his &appellants' house and #hallen%ed him to a fi%ht. "ismissin% the #hallen%e, he wentout of his house and pro#eeded to his farm to %et his #arabao but the vi#tim pursued him. hey %rappled for

possession of the %un and bolo. 6n the ensuin% stru%%le, he stru#5 the vi#tim with a wren#h. 3e deniedhavin% fired the %un. 3e pointed to somebody alle%edly wearin% a hat who #ould have shot and stabbedPepito.

6n a "e#ision- dated July -, 2, the Re%ional rial Court &RC' of Pili, Camarines 4ur, Dran#h 2, foundappellant %uilty of murder. 8endin% #reden#e to the testimonies of the prose#ution witnesses, the trial #ourtheld that the atta#5 on the vi#tim was perpetrated by no other than appellantE that the atta#5 wastrea#herous as the appellant suddenly appeared and shot the vi#tim, and after havin% wounded him,stabbed him with a bolo. he RC found appellants tale in#redible and self(servin% espe#ially in view of hispositive identifi#ation by the prose#ution witnesses.

he dispositive portion of the trial #ourts "e#ision reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, jud%ment is hereby rendered, findin% the a##used %uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the #rimeof murder and senten#es him to suffer the penalty of Re#lusion Perpetua, to%ether with its a##essory

penalties, #ondemnin% him to pay a#tual dama%es of P?,00$., moral dama%es of P?,. andP?,. as indemnity for the death of Pepito "illaE the a##used is #redited in full for his preventivedetention should he a%ree in writin% to abide by the rules for #onvi#ted prisoners, otherwise to 0G? of thesameE #osts a%ainst the a##used.

4/ /R"9R9".2

A%%rieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals &CA' ar%uin% in the main that the trial #ourt erred infindin% him %uilty of the #har%e. 3e #ontended that there was no dire#t proof showin% that he a#tually 5illedthe vi#tim.

he CA, however, was not persuaded. hus, in its June , 2-- "e#ision, it affirmed with modifi#ation thefindin%s of the RC, vi* #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, premises #onsidered, the "e#ision of the Re%ional rial Court, Dran#h 2, Pili, Camarines 4ur,in Crim. Case +o. P(0!! for =urder, #onvi#tin% "omin%o "illa y Paular is A116R=9" with =/"616CA6/+.A##ordin%ly, a##used is hereby senten#ed to suffer Re#lusion Perpetua to%ether with its a##essory penalties,and is further /R"9R9" to pay the vi#tims heirs P?,00$., as a#tual dama%es, P?,., as moraldama%es, and P7?,., as #ivil indemnity for the death of the vi#tim.

4/ /R"9R9".0

3en#e, this appeal. 6n a Resolution? dated April -$, 2-2, we re@uired both parties to file their 4upplementalDriefs. 3owever, both parties opted not to file the same.! 3en#e, we will resolve this appeal based on thebriefs submitted by the parties before the CA.

After a #areful review of the re#ords of the #ase, the Court finds the appeal to be la#5in% in merit. here#ords belie appellants #ontention that there was no dire#t proof identifyin% him as the perpetrator of the

#rime. he testimonies of prose#ution witnesses Pepito, Jr. and Rene%ado established without a shadow ofdoubt that it was appellant who mer#ilessly 5illed his brother, Pepito.

Pepito, Jr. was #ate%ori#al in his testimony that (

Pepito "illa, Jr., what is your relation to the vi#tim in this #aseH

A 3e is my father.

3ow about to the a##used in this #aseI, "omin%o "illaH

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


A 3e is my un#le.

> >> >

/n July 22, 2 at around ? in the afternoon do you rememberwhere you wereH

A Qes, sir.

Where were youH

A 6 was at the side of the road in sitio 6lawod, 3imaao, Pili, Camarines 4ur.

> > > IWhat were you doin% thereH

A +one, sir.

> >> >

While thereat, do you remember > > > any unusual in#identH

A Qes, sir.

What was that all aboutHA 6 saw my father bein% #hased by un#le 6n%o.

IWhere did this in#ident IhappenH

A 6n sitio 6lawod, 3imaao, Pili, Camarines 4ur.

While your father was bein% #hased by "omin%o "illa how far were youfrom where you are seated now will you please point to an obje#t outsidethis I#ourtroom representin% the distan#e similar to the distan#e fromwhere you were to the pla#e where your father Iwas bein% #hased by"omin%o "illaH

A hat my un#le was an%ry.

Will you please tell us the distan#e at the time you saw your father wasbein% #hased by your un#le "omin%o "illa, what was the distan#e of yourfather to "omin%o "illaH

A hree arms len%th.

After you saw "omin%o "illa #hasin% your father, what happened ne>tH

A 3e shot himI, sir.

/f your own 5nowled%e, was your father hit by the shotH

A Qes, sir.

Why, what happened to your fatherH

A 3e Ilimped, sir.

Will you please tell us or illustrate to us, as you have said your fatherwas shot by "omin%o "illa, please indi#ate to us the %un used by"omin%o "illaH

6+9RPR99R

Witness indi#ateId a len%th of about $ in#hes.

After your father was shot by "omin%o "illa, what happened ne>tH

A 3e stabbed him.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Why, what was the position of your father when "omin%o "illa stabIbedyour fatherH

6+9RPR99R

Witness illustrateIs in standin% position.

What was the position of your father when "omin%o "illa stabIbed yourfatherH

A 3e was standin%I, sir and his 2 hands were Iat his side.

While your father was bein% stabbed by "omin%o "illa, where was therelative position of "omin%o "illa in relation to your fatherH

A "omin%o "illa was in front.

3ow many times Iwas your father > > > stabbedH

A /neI, sir.

Considerin% that you Iare the son of Pepito "illa, 4r., what did you doH

A 6 told my %randfather that the two of them were fi%htin%, after 6 told my

%randfather > > > 6 went ba#5 and approa#hed them but at that time"omin%o "illa was runnin%.

> >> >

What happened to your fatherH

A 3e was already lyin% on the %roundI, sir.

What did you do when you Isaw your father > > > already lyin% on the%roundH

A 6 as5ed help from the other people who also witnessIed the in#ident tobrin% him to the hospital.

What happened to your fatherHA 3e did not rea#h the hospital be#ause he died.7

Pepito, Jr.s testimony was #orroborated in all material points by the testimony of Rene%ado.$#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6n fine, both the RC and the CA #orre#tly found appellant %uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the #rime ofmurder and properly senten#ed him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. =oreover, appellant is noteli%ible for parole pursuant to 4e#tion of Republi# A#t +o. 0! or the A#t Prohibitin% the 6mposition of"eath Penalty in the Philippines. he awards of #ivil indemnity in the amount of P7?,. and moraldama%es in the amount of P?,. are proper. 6n addition, the heirs of the vi#tim are entitled toe>emplary dama%es in the amount of P,..

Anent the award of a#tual dama%es in the amount of P?,00$., we find that only the amount ofP-?,. was duly re#eipted. he amount of P2,00$.- whi#h supposedly pertained to e>penses

in#urred durin% the wa5e was not supported by re#eipts but #onsisted only of handwritten entries. As weheld in People v. Villanueva,-- ;when a#tual dama%es proven by re#eipts durin% the trial amount to less thanP2?,., as in this #ase, the award of temperate dama%es of P2?,. is justified in lieu of a#tualdama%es of a lesser amount.< A##ordin%ly, we %rant temperate dama%es in the amount of P2?,. inlieu of a#tual dama%es. 6n addition, all dama%es awarded shall earn interest at the rate of !F perannumfrom date of finality of jud%ment until fully paid. #hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the assailed June , 2-- "e#ision of the Court of Appeals in CA().R.(CR(3C. +o. 0$$findin% appellant "omin%o "illa Paular %uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the #rime of murder andsenten#in% him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Pepito "illa Paular theamounts of P7?,. as #ivil indemnity and P?,. as moral dama%es,

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


is AFFIRED withODIFICATIONS that appellant is not eli%ible for paroleE appellant is further ordered topay the heirs of the vi#tim P,. as e>emplary dama%es, and P2?,. as temperate dama%es, allwith interest at the rate of !F per annum from date of finality of this jud%ment until fully paid.


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 20799, January 21, 2015

;EO;LE OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Appellee, v. GERARDO EN$ERALE DE VILLA, Appellant .

D E C I S I O N

CAR;IO, J."

T)& Ca&

/n appeal is the - January 2- "e#ision- of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. CR 3C +o. 00$. he Courtof Appeals affirmed the -? 1ebruary 2-- "e#ision2 of the Re%ional rial Court, Dran#h -2 of 8ipa City#onvi#tin% appellant )erardo 9numerable y "e *illa for violation of 4e#tion ? of Republi# A#t +o. -!?. #ralawred

T)& Fa(

he 6nformation dated 27 Au%ust 20 reads #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

hat on or about the 27th day of =ay, 20 at about -- o#lo#5 in the mornin% at Petron )asoline 4tation,

lo#ated at D. =orada Ave., 8ipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdi#tion of this 3onorable Court, theabove(named a##used, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,deliver, dispose or %ive away to a poli#e offi#er(poseur buyer, .$$ %rams of =ethamphetamine3ydro#hloride lo#ally 5nown as ;shabu<, a dan%erous dru%, #ontained in three &' plasti# sa#hets.

Contrary to 8aw.

Appellant pleaded not %uilty to the offense #har%ed.0 rial ensued.

he prose#ution presented two witnesses, namely Poli#e /ffi#er &P/' 9dwalberto *illas and Poli#e

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6nspe#tor "anilo Dalmes. /n the other hand, appellant waived the presentation of any defense eviden#e.

As found by the trial #ourt, the fa#ts are as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1rom the eviden#e addu#ed by the People, the Court finds that based on the information about a deal inshabu between the asset of P/ 9dwalberto *illas and a #ertain )erry of 4an Pablo City, a buy(bustoperation was #ondu#ted by the elements of the Datan%as City Poli#e 4tation with the assistan#e of Poli#e

6nspe#tor "anilo Dalmes of the C6") Datan%as Provin#e on =ay 27, 20 at -- o#lo#5 in the mornin% atthe Petron )asoline 4tation alon% D. =orada Ave., 8ipa City.

Ksin% two &2' pie#es of mar5ed P?. bills and boodle money to ma5e the appearan#e of aboutP20,., the poli#e asset who posed as a buyer transa#ted with the alias )erry upon his arrival at the%as station. After the e>#han%e of the mar5ed money and the three &' plasti# sa#hets of shabu pla#ed in abla#5 plasti# bo>, alias )erry was pla#ed under arrest. 3e was later identified as )erardo 9numerable y de*illa. he mar5ed money was re#overed from his possession by P/ *illas who also too5 #ustody of thespe#imen shabu whi#h he mar5ed 9=* - to 9=* . he three &' sa#hets of shabu were turned over to theDatan%as Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory, pursuant to the re@uest for laboratory e>amination of PG4upt. 1austo=anBanilla, Jr., Chief of Poli#e, Datan%as City P+P on =ay 27, 20 at ?2? p.m. 3owever, that Crimelaboratory indorsed the re@uest with the spe#imens on June 0, 20 at 2 p.m. to the Re%ional Crime8aboratory in Calamba City.

Poli#e 6nspe#tor and 1orensi# Chemist "onna *illa P. 3uel%as found the spe#imens positive for the presen#e

of methamphetamine hydro#hloride, a dan%erous dru%, as shown by Chemistry Report +o. "(?!!(0, theauthenti#ity and %enuineness of whi#h were admitted by a##used durin% the pre(trial.?

Appellant filed a Comment with =otion for 8eave to 1ile "emurrer,! whi#h motion was denied by the trial#ourt for appellants failure to addu#e any reason therefor.7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

he trial #ourt found appellant %uilty of the offense #har%ed. he dispositive portion of the trial #ourtsde#ision reads#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, the Court finds a##used )9RAR"/ 9+K=9RAD89 "9 *688A %uilty beyond reasonable doubtas prin#ipal by dire#t parti#ipation of the #rime of dru% pushin% as defined and penaliBed under 4e#tion ?,Arti#le 66 of Republi# A#t I+o. -!? otherwise 5nown as the Comprehensive "an%erous "ru%s A#t of 22and hereby impose on him the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P?,.. he .$$%rams of shabu are hereby ordered destroyed pursuant to the provisions of 4e#tion 2-&0' and &7' of RA

-!?.

he period of detention of the a##used shall be dedu#ted in his servi#e of senten#e.

8et a #ommitment order be issued for the transfer of #ustody of the a##used from the DJ=P 8ipa City to the+ational Penitentiary, =untinlupa City.

4/ /R"9R9".$

Appellant filed a +oti#e of Appeal. he Court of Appeals affirmed the #onvi#tion of appellant for the offense#har%ed.

3en#e, this appeal.#ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Cour( o/ A**&a'

6n sustainin% appellants #onvi#tion for the offense #har%ed, the Court of Appeals held that the testimony ofP/ *illas identifyin% the three plasti# sa#hets of shabu as the same ones seiBed from appellant renderedinsi%nifi#ant appellants alle%ation that P/ *illas did not immediately put mar5in%s on the three sa#hets ofshabu at the pla#e of arrest. he Court of Appeals further ruled that the failure of the arrestin% offi#ers to#ondu#t a physi#al inventory and to ta5e photo%raphs of the seiBed items is not fatal as lon% as the inte%rityand evidentiary value of the seiBed items are properly preserved, as in this #ase.

A##ordin% to the Court of Appeals, the prose#ution was able to prove the unbro5en #hain of #ustody of theprohibited dru% from the time P/ *illas #onfis#ated the plasti# sa#hets from appellant and mar5ed them at

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


the pla#e of arrest, to the time P/ *illas brou%ht the plasti# sa#hets to the poli#e station and turned themover to the investi%ator on(duty until the time 4P/- de Castro submitted the mar5ed plasti# sa#hets to theRe%ional Crime 8aboratory /ffi#e CalabarBon for laboratory e>amination.#ralawred

T)& Iu&

he issue boils down to whether the prose#ution established the identity and inte%rity of the #onfis#ated

ille%al dru%, whi#h is the corpus delicti of the offense #har%ed a%ainst appellant.#ralawred

T)& Ru'+n o/ ()& Cour(

We %rant the appeal.

While appellant waived the presentation of eviden#e for his defense, he disputes the identity and inte%rity of the ille%al dru% whi#h is the corpus delicti of the offense #har%ed a%ainst him. Appellant maintains that theprose#ution failed to prove the unbro5en #hain of #ustody of the ille%al dru% whi#h %ravely impairs itsidentity. Without the identity of the corpus delicti bein% suffi#iently established, appellant #laims that heshould be a#@uitted.

6t is settled that in prose#utions for ille%al sale of dan%erous dru%, not only must the essential elements ofthe offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but li5ewise the identity of the prohibited dru%. hedan%erous dru% itself #onstitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fa#t of its e>isten#e is vital to a

jud%ment of #onvi#tion.-#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

+e#essarily, the prose#ution must establish that the substan#e seiBed from the a##used is the samesubstan#e offered in #ourt as e>hibit. 6n this re%ard, the prose#ution must suffi#iently prove the unbro5en#hain of #ustody of the #onfis#ated ille%al dru%. 6n People v. &atamama,-- the Court held#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6n all prose#utions for the violation of the Comprehensive "an%erous "ru%s A#t of 22, the e>isten#e of theprohibited dru% has to be proved. T)& )a+n o/ u(o-y ru'& r&u+r& ()a( (&(+ony 3& *r&&n(&-a3ou( &&ry '+n +n ()& )a+n, /ro ()& o&n( ()& +(& %a &+&- u* (o ()& (+& +( + o//&r&- +n&+-&n&. o this end, the prose#ution must ensure that the substan#e presented in #ourt is the samesubstan#e seiBed from the a##used.

While this Court re#o%niBes substantial adheren#e to the re@uirements of R.A. +o. -!? and itsimplementin% rules and re%ulations, not perfe#t adheren#e, is what is demanded of poli#e offi#ers attendin%

to dru%s #ases, still, su#h offi#ers must present justifiable reason for their imperfe#t #ondu#t and show thatthe inte%rity and evidentiary value of the seiBed items had been preserved. > > >. &9mphasis supplied'

6n People v. Climaco,-2 #itin% Malillin v. People,- the Court held #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

> > > Io establish %uilt of the a##used beyond reasonable doubt in #ases involvin% dan%erous dru%s, it isimportant that the substan#e ille%ally possessed in the first pla#e be the same substan#e offered in #ourt ase>hibit. his #hain of #ustody re@uirement ensures that unne#essary doubts are removed #on#ernin% theidentity of the eviden#e. When the identity of the dan%erous dru% re#overed from the a##used is not thesame dan%erous dru% presented to the forensi# #hemist for review and e>amination, nor the samedan%erous dru% presented to the #ourt, the identity of the dan%erous dru% is not preserved due to thebro5en #hain of #ustody. With this, an element in the #riminal #ases for ille%al sale and ille%al possession ofdan%erous dru%s, the corpus delicti , is not proven, and the a##used must then be a#@uitted based onreasonable doubt. 1or this reason, Ithe a##used must be a#@uitted on the %round of reasonable doubt due

to the bro5en #hain of #ustody over the dan%erous dru% alle%edly re#overed from him.

6n this #ase, there was a %larin% %ap in the #ustody of the ille%al dru% sin#e the prose#ution failed tosuffi#iently establish who had #ustody of the ille%al dru% from the moment it was alle%edly transmitted tothe Datan%as Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory on 27 =ay 20 until it was alle%edly delivered to the Re%ionalCrime 8aboratory on 0 June 20. here was no eviden#e presented how the #onfis#ated sa#hets of shabuwere stored, preserved or labeled nor who had #ustody prior to their delivery to the Re%ional Crime8aboratory and their subse@uent presentation before the trial #ourt. his is evident from the testimony ofP/ *illas, who stated he had no 5nowled%e on who had #ustody of the sa#hets of shabu from 27 =ay 20until 0 June 20. P/ *illas testified thus#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Dut when the a##used was arrested on =ay 27, 20, re#ords willshow that the spe#imen was submitted to the #rime laboratory onJune 0, 20 whi#h is pra#ti#ally several days after. Am 6 ri%htH

A 6t was turned over to the duty investi%ator.

6)o 3rou)( ()& *&+&n (o ()& r+& 'a3ora(ory

A I -on( no% /ro ()& -u(y +n&(+a(or, +r.

4o you are not aware who brou%ht the spe#imen to the #rimelaboratoryH

A Qes, sir.

Dut between =ay 27 and June 0, 20, who was in #ustody of thespe#imenH

A 6 turned it over to the duty investi%ator, sir.

/n what dateH

A /n =ay 27 after we turned over the suspe#t to the investi%ator, sir.

4o your statement whi#h says that the a##used was released simplybe#ause the spe#imen or the result of the e>amination Y would not#at#h up with the investi%ation is not #orre#t be#ause you have notsubmitted immediately the spe#imen to the #rime laboratoryH

C/KR

De#ause it was submitted seven &7' days after the apprehensionH

A I %a no( ()& on& %)o + on&rn&- %+() ()& u3++on o/()& *&+&n (o ()& r+& 'a3ora(ory. We turned it over to theduty investi%ator and the duty investi%ator mar5ed the spe#imen,Qour 3onor.

AQ. )AJ6/4 Dut you will a%ree that the spe#imen was submitted to the #rimelaboratory by your investi%ator only on June 0, 20 or pra#ti#ally awee5 after the apprehensionH

A I -on( no%, +r. I( + on'y no% ()a( I a& (o no%,+r.-0 &9mphasis supplied'

he prose#ution attempted to fill the %ap in the #hain of #ustody. 3owever, su#h effort proved futile. /n re(dire#t e>amination, P/ *illas, who earlier testified that he had no 5nowled%e on who had #ustody of theille%al dru%s prior and durin% their delivery to the #rime laboratories, merely restated the #ontents of the June 20 =emorandum from the Chief of the Datan%as Poli#e addressed to the Re%ional Chief,#orrespondin% to the @uestions of the prose#utor. 6n other words, P/ *illas testified on a pie#e ofdo#ument he had no parti#ipation in the preparation or e>e#ution thereof. P/ *illas testified as follows#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CR/44(9:A=6+A6/+ /1 AQ. )AJ6/4

"o you admit there are no si%nifi#ant mar5in%s on this bla#5 bo> forpossession or identifi#ation more parti#ularly the si%nature or initialof the arrestin% offi#erH

A +o, sir.

AQ. )AJ6/4

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


+o further @uestion, Qour 3onor.

C/KR

Re(dire#t.

PR/49CK/R

"urin% your #ross(e>amination, you were as5ed re%ardin% the fa#t asa reply to the @uestion of the defense it was after 7 days that thespe#imen was a#tually brou%ht to the laboratory for e>amination,your answer that was #orre#tH

A Qes, maam.

6 am showin% to you a do#ument, the indorsement whi#h #ame fromthe /ffi#e of the Chief of Poli#e of Datan%as City dated =ay 27, 20,#an you please %o over the same and tell the Court what is therelevan#e of that do#ument re%ardin% the delivery of spe#imen to the#rime laboratoryH

A his is the re@uest prepared by our investi%ator dated =ay 27 in

relation to the arrest of )erardo 9numerable wherein the subje#twere three &' plasti# sa#hets of shabu, it was delivered to Datan%asProvin#ial Crime 8aboratory on the same date, maam.

3ow did you #ome to 5now it was delivered on the same dateH

A here was a stamp re#eipt by the Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory offi#edelivered by 4P/- "e Castro and re#eived by P/ 8larena atDatan%as Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory, maam.

Qou li5ewise identified durin% the dire#t e>amination #hemistry report#omin% from Camp *i#ente 8im, how would you re#on#ile the fa#t thespe#imen was delivered to the Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory and the

result #ame from Camp *i#ente 8imHA 6t was the Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory of Datan%as PP/ who made

the indorsements from Datan%as Provin#ial Poli#e /ffi#e to the Crime8aboratory, Camp *i#ente 8im, maam.

"o you have proof to show that fa#tH

A Qes, maam.

What is thatH

A 8etter re@uest made by the Datan%as Crime 8aboratory to the Crime8aboratory, Camp *i#ente 8im, maam.

his is the same re@uest made by the Datan%as Provin#ial Crime

8aboratory addressed to Re%ional Crime 8aboratory, was there aproof to show that the spe#imen to%ether with the indorsement wasa#tually re#eived by the Crime 8aboratory Camp *i#ente 8im.

A Qes, there was a stamp of the Re%ional Crime 8aboratory offi#edelivered by P/ *ar%as and re#eived by P/ =a#abas#o of theRe%ional Crime 8aboratory, maam.

What dateH

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


A 6t was delivered on June and the spe#imen was re#eived on June 0,maam.

Why was it ne#essary for your offi#e to deliver the spe#imen to theProvin#ial Crime 8aboratory, why not dire#tly to the Crime 8aboratoryof Camp *i#ente 8imH

A "urin% that time there was no #hemist who e>amined the spe#imenin the Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory so what they did was theydelivered the spe#imen to the Re%ional Crime 8aboratory, maam.

=y @uestion is, why not deliver it dire#tly to Camp *i#ente 8imH

A he P+P durin% that time did not have any bud%et, maam.

3ow mu#h would it need to deliver the spe#imenH

A 6t was #heap, sir. he problem was that the Provin#ial Crime8aboratory did not have any #hemist, they delivered the spe#imen tothe Re%ional Crime 8aboratory that is why there are many a##usedwho remained at lar%e, maam.

> > > > 6)o 3rou)( ()& *&+&n (o ()& ;N; Cr+& La3ora(ory

A T)& o//+&r on -u(y, our #onor.

Fro a(ana (o Ca* V+&n(& L+, -o you no% ()& o//+&r

A T)& *&ron %)o -&'+&r&- ()&r&, +( + (a(&- +n ()& -ou&n(,our #onor.

6)o %a +n u(o-y o/ ()+ *&+&n /ro a(ana ;N; (o()& ;ro+n+a' Cr+& La3ora(ory

A T)& o//+&r, our #onor.-? &9mphasis supplied'

Clearly, P/ *illas had no personal 5nowled%e on &-' how the ille%al dru%s were delivered and who deliveredthe dru%s from the Datan%as Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory to the Re%ional Crime 8aboratoryE &2' whore#eived the dru%s in the Re%ional Crime 8aboratoryE and &' who had #ustody of the dru%s from 27 =ay20 to June 20 until their presentation before the trial #ourt. he testimony of P/ *illas merelyattests to the e>isten#e of the =emorandum from the Chief of the Datan%as Provin#ial Crime 8aboratory tothe Re%ional Crime 8aboratory.

While appellant admitted durin% the pre(trial the authenti#ity and due e>e#ution of the Chemistry Report,prepared by Poli#e 6nspe#tor and 1orensi# Chemist "onna *illa P. 3uel%as, this admission merely affirms thee>isten#e of the spe#imen and the re@uest for laboratory e>amination and the results thereof. Appellantsadmission does not relate to the issue of #hain of #ustody. 6n fa#t, appellant @ualified his admission that thespe#imens were not ta5en or bou%ht from him.-! 6n People v. 3utierre* , the Court stated #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

> > > hat the defense stipulated on these matters,viB that the spe#imen e>ists, that a re@uest has beenmade by the arrestin% offi#ers for e>amination thereof, that a forensi# #hemist e>amined it, and that ittested positive for methylamphetamine hydro#hloride has no bearin% on the @uestion of #hain of #ustody.hese stipulations, whi#h merely affirm the e>isten#e of the spe#imen, and the re@uest for laboratorye>amination and the results thereof, were entered into durin% pre(trial only in order to dispense with thetestimony of the forensi# #hemist and abbreviate the pro#eedin%s. > > >.-7

4in#e the failure of the prose#ution to establish every lin5 in the #hain of #ustody of the ille%al dru% %ravely#ompromised its identity and inte%rity, whi#h ille%al dru% is the corpus delicti of the offense #har%ed a%ainstappellant, his a#@uittal is therefore in order.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, we GRANT the appeal and AC$IT appellant )erardo 9numerable y "e *illa based on

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


reasonable doubt and we ORDER his immediate release from detention, unless he is detained for any otherlawful #ause.


T#IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 202<7, January 21, 2015

;EO;LE OF T#E ;#ILI;;INES, Plaintiff,Appellee, v. RA:I INANGA D$ANSAL, Accused, Appellant .

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAA, JR., J."

Defore this Court is an appeal from the June , 2-- "e#ision- of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA().R. CR3C +o. ??!(=6+ whi#h affirmed the July -, 27 "e#ision2 of the Re%ional rial Court &RC' of DutuanCity, Dran#h 0, findin% a##used(appellant Ra5im =inan%a "umansal &appellant' %uilty beyond reasonabledoubt of ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%s. Also on appeal is the CA Resolution0 dated +ovember 2-,2-- denyin% appellants motion for re#onsideration.

he #ase stemmed from the 6nformation? dated Au%ust -, 22 #har%in% appellant with violation of 4e#tion--, Arti#le 66 of Republi# A#t &R.A.' +o. -!?, otherwise 5nown as the Comprehensive "an%erous "ru%s A#tof 22, for ille%al possession of -2.$$2 %rams of methamphetamine hydro#hloride or shabu. he #ase wasdo#5eted as Criminal Case +o. ?0.

Kpon arrai%nment, appellant pleaded not %uilty to the #har%e.!


At the trial, Poli#e /ffi#er - Rommel dela CruB CondeB &P/- CondeB' and P/2 4aldino *irtudaBo &P/2*irtudaBo', Philippine +ational Poli#e &P+P' offi#ers assi%ned with the Philippine "ru% 9nfor#ement A%en#y&P"9A', and Poli#e 4enior 6nspe#tor +orman ). Jovita &PG4r. 6nsp. Jovita', a 1orensi# Chemist, testified forthe prose#ution and established the followin% fa#ts

After re#eivin% reliable information from a poli#e asset that appellant is a#tively en%a%ed in sellin% ille%aldru%s, a team #omposed of P/- CondeB, P/2 *irtudaBo and the poli#e asset was formed to #ondu#t a buy(bust operation at Puro5 , Daran%ay 2, 3oly Redeemer, Dutuan City, a%ainst the appellant. P/- CondeBwas desi%nated to a#t as the poseur(buyer with P/2 *irtudaBo as his ba#5(up. he team brou%ht with themthe amount of P2,. as show money.7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Kpon arrival at the desi%nated pla#e at around 2 p.m. of Au%ust -2, 22, the poli#e asset introdu#edP/- CondeB to the appellant as an interested buyer of shabu. After the appellant a%reed to sell to P/-

CondeB four ;sa#5s< of shabu for the amount of P2,., appellant told P/- CondeB to wait. Appellantthen left and after a few minutes returned. 3e then showed P/- CondeB four bi% sa#hets of shabu. Afterre#eivin% the four sa#hets, P/- CondeB e>amined them and bein% #onvin#ed of their %enuineness, %ave theprearran%ed si%nal. hus, P/2 *irtudaBo rushed to the s#ene. he poli#e offi#ers introdu#ed themselves asP"9A a%ents and arrested the appellant, informin% the latter of his #onstitutional ri%hts. he money was not%iven to appellant as it was intended only as show money. P/- CondeB mar5ed the four sa#hets %iven bythe appellant as RCC - to RCC 0. he appellant was then brou%ht to the poli#e station for investi%ation.$


At the poli#e station, appellant was photo%raphed in the presen#e of a Daran%ay Captain and a 4tateProse#utor. Armed with the #orrespondin% re@uests,- the four mar5ed sa#hets and the appellant were

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


brou%ht by P/- CondeB and P/2 *irtudaBo to the P+P Crime 8aboratory for e>amination.-- At the P+PCrime 8aboratory, the four sa#hets were mar5ed as A(-, A(2, A( and A(0 by PG4r. 6nsp. Jovita, the 1orensi#Chemist.-2 While the dru% test #ondu#ted on the person of the appellant yielded a ne%ative result,- the foursa#hets with a total wei%ht of -2.$$2 %rams were positive for methamphetamine hydro#hloride.-0


/n #ross(e>amination, P/- CondeB testified that initially the P"9A filed a #ase a%ainst the appellant forviolation of 4e#tion ?, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!? or for ille%al sale of shabu but when the investi%ation

rea#hed the /ffi#e of the City Prose#utor the #ase was modified to one for ille%al possession.-?


/n the other hand, the defense %ave a different version of the story.

he defense presented as its witnesses +ellie 4alino +alasa &+ellie', Denhur Durdeos &Denhur', and theappellant himself.

+ellie testified that she is the owner of a two(storey house where one =a> =alubay &=a>' was rentin% one of the rooms on the %round floor. 4he said that on Au%ust -2, 22, at around -- a.m., she noti#ed a#ommotion emanatin% from the adja#ent room rented by =a>. 4he saw three armed persons in white shirts5i#5in% appellant, a visitor of =a>. After witnessin% the in#ident, she hid herself.-!


Denhur testified that on Au%ust -2, 22, at around -2 noon, he saw four to five persons wal5in% onsin%le file towards +ellies house. 3e added that he heard a #ommotion thereafter and saw a person namedRa5im with hand#uffed hands ta5en by the armed men from +ellies house. 3e said that there was no buy(

bust operation #ondu#ted at that time.-7#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

As the last witness for the defense, appellant denied the #har%e a%ainst him. 3e testified that on Au%ust -2,22, at around -2 noon, five armed men for#ibly entered the room rented by =a> and arrested him.3e identified one of the five men as a =uslim who has a %rud%e a%ainst him. 3e #laimed that the =usliminfluen#ed the poli#e offi#ers to arrest him. 3e added that in his presen#e the =uslim %ave 4P/ "indoAlota money as payment for his arrest. 3e also #laimed that he was mauled and brou%ht to the poli#estation for investi%ationE that he was informed that he was arrested for sellin% ille%al dru%sE and that at thepoli#e station he was photo%raphed.-$


/n July -, 27, the RC rendered its "e#ision- in Criminal Case +o. ?0 and found appellant %uilty as#har%ed of violation of 4e#tion --, para%raph 2, sub(para%raph &-',2 Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!?. he RCheld that the prose#ution was able to prove all the elements of ille%al possession of dru%s in this #ase. heRC said that appellants assertion that money was handed by the =uslim to the poli#e offi#ers in hispresen#e is illo%i#al, un#ommon and un#onvin#in%. he RC also found that the two other defense witnesses

la#5ed #andor and their #ombined testimonies have earmar5s of falsehood.2- hus, the RC disposed of the#ase in this wise #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

W39R91/R9, premises #onsidered, a##used Ra5im =inan%a y "umansal is found %uilty beyond reasonabledoubt Iof violation of 4e#tion --, para%raph 2, 4ub(par. &-' of Art 66 of Republi# A#t -!?, otherwise 5nownas the "an%erous "ru%s A#t of 22, and is hereby senten#ed to suffer the e>treme penalty of 8ifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of 1our 3undred housand &P0,.' Pesos without subsidiaryimprisonment in #ase of insolven#y.

he four &0' sa#hets of shabu Iare hereby de#lared #onfis#ated in favor of the %overnment to be dealt within a##ordan#e with law.

A##used shall serve his senten#e at the "avao Prison and Penal 1arm at 4to. omas, "avao del +orte andshall be #redited in the servi#e of his senten#e with his preventive imprisonment #onformably with Art. 2 of

the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

3owever, a##used shall remain at the City Jail until the termination of Crim. Case +o. --!-.

4/ /R"9R9".22

6n its June , 2-- "e#ision, the CA affirmed the RCs "e#ision. 6n its +ovember 2-, 2--Resolution,2the CA denied appellants motion for re#onsideration. 3en#e, this appeal.

6n his supplemental brief,20 appellant #laims that the CA erred #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6. 6n failin% to appre#iate that the buy(bust operation on -2 Au%ust I22 as admitted to bypoli#e offi#ers in their testimonies, #onstituted the fa#tual ba#5drop for the arrest andindi#tment of A##used(Appellant for ille%al possession of prohibited dru%sE

66. 6n failin% to appre#iate serious irre%ularities attendant to the entrapment operation andpro#edure employed by the poli#e offi#ersE

666. 6n affirmin% the lower #ourts appre#iation and appli#ation of presumption of re%ularity inthe performan#e of offi#ial duty by the poli#e offi#ersE

6*. 6n failin% to appre#iate that the failure of the prose#ution to #ross(e>amine A##used(Appellant on material and relevant points, did not destroy his oral testimony or dire#te>aminationE

*. 6n holdin% that ;appellants entry of a valid plea and a#tive parti#ipation in the trial #uredany defe#t in his arrestE<

*6. 6n affirmin% the lower #ourts findin% that the prose#ution proved all the elements of theoffenseE Iand

*66. Assumin% arguendo that indeed A##used(Appellant possessed the prohibited dru%s, forfailin% to #onsider that poli#e offi#ers may have en%a%ed in or employed 6+"KC9=9+rather than 9+RAP=9+.2?

he sole issue to be resolved is whether or not the appellants %uilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We rule in the affirmative.

he essential elements of ille%al possession of dan%erous dru%s are &-' the a##used is in possession of anitem or obje#t that is identified to be a prohibited dru%E &2' su#h possession is not authoriBed by lawE and&' the a##used freely and #ons#iously possess the said dru%.2!


We find that these essential elements were proven in this #ase. Appellant was #au%ht in flagrantepossessin%

-2.$$2 %rams of shabu, a dan%erous dru%, pa#5ed in four bi% sa#hets. 3is possession of said dan%erousdru%s is not authoriBed by law. And he was freely and #ons#iously possessin% the #ontraband as shown byhis a#t of handin% these four sa#hets to P/- CondeB in an intended sale. We note that appellant waspositively identified by P/- CondeB as the one who handed over the four sa#hets. 3owever, the money wasnot %iven to appellant as it was intended only as show money.

he Court %ives full faith and #reden#e to the testimonies of the poli#e offi#ers and upholds the presumptionof re%ularity in the apprehendin% offi#ers performan#e of offi#ial duty. 6t is a settled rule that in #asesinvolvin% violations of the "an%erous "ru%s A#t, #reden#e is %iven to prose#ution witnesses who are poli#eoffi#ers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a re%ular manner, unless there is eviden#eto the #ontrary.27


/n the other hand, appellant failed to present #lear and #onvin#in% eviden#e to overturn the presumptionthat the arrestin% offi#ers re%ularly performed their duties. 9>#ept for his bare alle%ations of denial andframe(up that a #ertain =uslim was behind his arrest, nothin% supports his #laim that the poli#e offi#ers

were impelled by improper motives to testify a%ainst him. 6n fa#t, in his dire#t testimony, appellant wasas5ed whether he 5new said =uslim but despite the opportunity %iven to him, he failed to identify him in#ourt.2$


his Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame(up. 4u#h defenses #aneasily be fabri#ated and are #ommon ploy in prose#utions for the ille%al sale and possession of dan%erousdru%s. 6n order to prosper, su#h defenses must be proved with stron% and #onvin#in% eviden#e.2


=oreover, in wei%hin% the testimonies of the prose#ution witnesses vis([(vis those of the defense, the RC%ave more #reden#e to the version of the prose#ution, to whi#h this Court finds no reason to disa%ree. Well(settled is the rule that in the absen#e of palpable error or %rave abuse of dis#retion on the part of the trial

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


jud%e, the trial #ourts evaluation of the #redibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. Prose#utions involvin% ille%al dru%s depend lar%ely on the #redibility of the poli#e offi#ers who #ondu#t the ;buy(bust< operation and appellate #ourts, upon established pre#edents and of ne#essity, rely on theassessment of the #redibility of witnesses by the trial #ourts whi#h have the uni@ue opportunity, unavailableto the appellate #ourts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, #ondu#t, and attitude underdire#t and #ross(e>amination.-


8astly, appellant #laims that there was no inventory of the prohibited items alle%edly seiBed from him. 3ear%ues that as a result of this omission, there is doubt as to the identity and inte%rity of the dru%s and thatthere was a brea5 in the #hain of #ustody of the eviden#e.2


4u#h ar%ument #annot prosper.

he 6mplementin% Rules and Re%ulations &6RR' of R.A. +o. -!? provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ 2-. Custody and (isposition o! Con!iscated, Seied and/or Surrendered (an*erous(ru*s, "lant Sources o! (an*erous (ru*s, Controlled "recursors and ssential Chemicals, nstruments/"araphernalia and/or Laoratory uipment. he P"9A shall ta5e #har%e and have#ustody of all dan%erous dru%s, plant sour#es of dan%erous dru%s, #ontrolled pre#ursors and essential#hemi#als, as well as instrumentsGparaphernalia andGor laboratory e@uipment so #onfis#ated, seiBed andGorsurrendered, for proper disposition in the followin% manner

&a' he apprehendin% offi#erGteam havin% initial #ustody and #ontrol of the dru%s shall, immediately afterseiBure and #onfis#ation, physi#ally inventory and photo%raph the same in the presen#e of the a##used orthe personGs from whom su#h items were #onfis#ated andGor seiBed, or hisGher representative or #ounsel, arepresentative from the media and the "epartment of Justi#e &"/J', and any ele#ted publi# offi#ial who shallbe re@uired to si%n the #opies of the inventory and be %iven a #opy thereofE ;ro+-&-, ()a( ()& *)y+a'+n&n(ory an- *)o(ora*) )a'' 3& on-u(&- a( ()& *'a& %)&r& ()& &ar) %arran( + &r&-> ora( ()& n&ar&( *o'+& (a(+on or a( ()& n&ar&( o//+& o/ ()& a**r&)&n-+n o//+&r(&a, %)+)&&r+ *ra(+a3'&, +n a& o/ %arran('& &+ur&> ;ro+-&-, /ur()&r, ()a( non=o*'+an& %+() ()&&r&u+r&&n( un-&r u(+/+a3'& roun-, a 'on a ()& +n(&r+(y an- ()& &+-&n(+ary a'u& o/ ()&&+&- +(& ar& *ro*&r'y *r&&r&- 3y ()& a**r&)&n-+n o//+&r(&a, )a'' no( r&n-&r o+- an-+na'+- u) &+ur& o/ an- u(o-y o&r a+- +(&I. &9mphasis supplied'

9vidently, the law itself lays down e>#eptions to its re@uirements. hus, non(#omplian#e with the above(mentioned re@uirements is not fatal. 6n fa#t it has been ruled time and a%ain that non(#omplian#e with

4e#tion 2- of the 6RR does not ma5e the items seiBed inadmissible. What is imperative is ;the preservationof the inte%rity and the evidential value of the seiBed items as the same would be utiliBed in thedetermination of the %uilt or inno#en#e of the a##used.<


6n this #ase, the #hain of #ustody #an be easily established throu%h the followin% lin5 &-' P/- CondeBmar5ed the seiBed four sa#hets handed to him by appellant with RCC - to RCC 0E &2' a re@uest forlaboratory e>amination of the seiBed items mar5ed RCC - to RCC 0 was si%ned by Poli#e 4uperintendent)lenn "i#hosa "ela orreE0 &' the re@uest and the mar5ed items seiBed, whi#h were personally deliveredby P/- CondeB and P/2 *irtudaBo, were re#eived by the P+P Crime 8aboratoryE &0' Chemistry Report +o."(-!(22? #onfirmed that the mar5ed items seiBed from appellant were methamphetaminehydro#hlorideE and &?' the mar5ed items were offered in eviden#e.

3en#e, it is #lear that the inte%rity and the evidentiary value of the seiBed dru%s were preserved. hisCourt, therefore, finds no reason to overturn the findin%s of the RC that the dru%s seiBed from appellantwere the same ones presented durin% trial. A##ordin%ly, it is but lo%i#al to #on#lude that the #hain of

#ustody of the illi#it dru%s seiBed from appellant remains unbro5en, #ontrary to the assertions of appellant.

6n sum, we find no reversible error #ommitted by the RC and CA in #onvi#tin% appellant of ille%alpossession of dru%s as to warrant the modifi#ation mu#h less the reversal thereof. 6t is hornboo5 do#trinethat the fa#tual findin%s of the CA affirmin% those of the trial #ourt are bindin% on this Court unless there is a#lear showin% that su#h findin%s are tainted with arbitrariness, #apri#iousness or palpable error.! his #aseis no e>#eption to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the #onvi#tion of the appellant for violation of4e#tion --, Arti#le 66 of R.A. +o. -!?.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the appeal is DISISSED. he June , 2-- "e#ision and +ovember 2-, 2-- Resolution

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


of the Court of Appeals in CA().R. CR 3C +o. ??!(=6+ are AFFIRED.

With #osts a%ainst the a##used(appellant.

SO ORDERED.

EN ANC

G.R. No. 20572<, January 21, 2015

T#E DIOCESE OF ACOLOD, RE;RESENTED T#E OST REV. IS#O; VICENTE . NAVARRAAND T#E IS#O; #ISELF IN #IS ;ERSONAL CA;ACIT, Petitioners, v. COISSION ON

ELECTIONS AND T#E ELECTION OFFICER OF ACOLOD CIT, ATT. AVIL V.AJAR$CON,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J."

All %overnmental authority emanates from our people. +o unreasonable restri#tions of the fundamental andpreferred ri%ht to e>pression of the ele#torate durin% politi#al #ontests no matter how seemin%ly beni%n willbe tolerated.

his #ase defines the e>tent that our people may shape the debates durin% ele#tions. 6t is si%nifi#ant and offirst impression. We are as5ed to de#ide whether the Commission on 9le#tions &C/=989C' has the#ompeten#e to limit e>pressions made by the #itiBens N who are not #andidates N durin% ele#tions.

Defore us is a spe#ial #ivil a#tion for #ertiorari and prohibition with appli#ation for preliminary injun#tion andtemporary restrainin% order- under Rule !? of the Rules of Court see5in% to nullify C/=989Cs +oti#e toRemove Campai%n =aterials2 dated 1ebruary 22, 2- and letter issued on 1ebruary 27, 2-.

he fa#ts are not disputed.

/n 1ebruary 2-, 2-, petitioners posted two &2' tarpaulins within a private #ompound housin% the 4an4ebastian Cathedral of Da#olod. 9a#h tarpaulin was appro>imately si> feet &!O' by ten feet &-O' in siBe. heywere posted on the front walls of the #athedral within publi# view. he first tarpaulin #ontains the messa%e ;6DA4KRA R3 8aw< referrin% to the Reprodu#tive 3ealth 8aw of 2-2 or Republi# A#t +o. -?0. he se#ondtarpaulin is the subje#t of the present #ase.0


his tarpaulin #ontains the headin% ;Cons#ien#e *ote< and lists #andidates as either ;&Anti(R3' eam Duhay< with a #he#5 mar5, or ;&Pro(R3' eam Patay< with an ;:< mar5. ? he ele#toral #andidates were #lassified

a##ordin% to their vote on the adoption of Republi# A#t +o. -?0, otherwise 5nown as the R3 8aw.

!

hosewho voted for the passin% of the law were #lassified by petitioners as #omprisin% ;eam Patay,< while thosewho voted a%ainst it form ;eam Duhay<7


TEA $#A TEA ;ATA

9strada, J* An%ara, Juan 9d%ardo

3onasan, )re%orio Casio, eddy

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


=a%saysay, =itos Cayetano, Alan Peter

Pimentel, Lo5o 9nrile, Ja#5ie

rillanes, Antonio 9s#udero, 1ran#is

*illar, Cynthia 3ontiveros, Risa

Party 8ist Duhay 8e%arda, 8oren

Party 8ist An% Pamilya Party 8ist )abriela

Party 8ist A5bayan

Party 8ist Dayan =una

Party 8ist Ana5 Pawis

"urin% oral ar%uments, respondents #on#eded that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid for by any#andidate. Petitioners also #on#eded that the tarpaulin #ontains names of #andidates for the 2- ele#tions,but not of politi#ians who helped in the passa%e of the R3 8aw but were not #andidates for that ele#tion.

/n 1ebruary 22, 2-, respondent Atty. =avil *. =ajaru#on, in her #apa#ity as 9le#tion /ffi#er of Da#olodCity, issued a +oti#e to Remove Campai%n =aterials$ addressed to petitioner =ost Rev. Dishop *i#ente =.+avarra. he ele#tion offi#er ordered the tarpaulins removal within three &' days from re#eipt for bein%oversiBed. C/=989C Resolution +o. !-? provides for the siBe re@uirement of two feet &2' by three feet&'.#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

/n 1ebruary 2?, 2-, petitioners replied- re@uestin%, amon% others, that &-' petitioner Dishop be %iven adefinite rulin% by C/=989C 8aw "epartment re%ardin% the tarpaulinE and &2' pendin% this opinion and theavailment of le%al remedies, the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.--


/n 1ebruary 27, 2-, C/=989C 8aw "epartment issued a letter-2 orderin% the immediate removal of thetarpaulinE otherwise, it will be #onstrained to file an ele#tion offense a%ainst petitioners. he letter ofC/=989C 8aw "epartment was silent on the remedies available to petitioners. he letter provides asfollows#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"ear Dishop +avarra

6t has rea#hed this /ffi#e that our 9le#tion /ffi#er for this City, Atty. =avil =ajaru#on, had already %iven younoti#e on 1ebruary 22, 2- as re%ards the ele#tion propa%anda material posted on the #hur#h vi#initypromotin% for or a%ainst the #andidates and party(list %roups with the followin% names and messa%es,parti#ularly des#ribed as followsChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

=aterial siBe si> feet &!' by ten feet &-'"es#ription 1K88 C/8/R ARPAK86+6ma%e of 499 AAC39" P6CKR94=essa%e C/+4C69+C9 */9 &A+6 R3' 9A=DK3AQ &PR/ R3' 9A= PAAQ8o#ation P/49" /+ 39 C3KRC3 *6C6+6Q /1 39

"6/C949 /1 DAC/8/" C6Qhe three &' day noti#e e>pired on 1ebruary 2?, 2-.

Considerin% that the above(mentioned material is found to be in violation of Comele# Resolution +o. !-?promul%ated on January -?, 2- parti#ularly on the siBe &even with the subse@uent division of the saidtarpaulin into two', as the lawful siBe for ele#tion propa%anda material is only two feet &2' by three feet&', please orderG#ause the immediate removal of said ele#tion propa%anda material, otherwise, we shall be#onstrained to file an ele#tion offense #ase a%ainst you.

We pray that the Catholi# Chur#h will be the first institution to help the Commission on 9le#tions in ensurin%

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


the #ondu#t of pea#eful, orderly, honest and #redible ele#tions.

han5 you and )od Dless\

Isi%nedAQ. 94=9RA8"A A=/RA(8A"RA

Director "V -

Con#erned about the imminent threat of prose#ution for their e>er#ise of free spee#h, petitioners initiatedthis #ase throu%h this petition for #ertiorari and prohibition with appli#ation for preliminary injun#tion andtemporary restrainin% order.-0 hey @uestion respondents noti#e dated 1ebruary 22, 2- and letter issuedon 1ebruary 27, 2-. hey pray that &-' the petition be %iven due #ourseE &2' a temporary restrainin%order &R/' andGor a writ of preliminary injun#tion be issued restrainin% respondents from furtherpro#eedin% in enfor#in% their orders for the removal of the eam Patay tarpaulinE and &' after noti#e andhearin%, a de#ision be rendered de#larin% the @uestioned orders of respondents as un#onstitutional and void,and permanently restrainin% respondents from enfor#in% them or any other similar order.-?


After due deliberation, this #ourt, on =ar#h ?, 2-, issued a temporary restrainin% order enjoinin%respondents from enfor#in% the assailed noti#e and letter, and set oral ar%uments on =ar#h -, 2-.-!


/n =ar#h -, 2-, respondents filed their #omment-7 ar%uin% that &-' a petition for #ertiorari and

prohibition under Rule !? of the Rules of Court filed before this #ourt is not the proper remedy to @uestionthe noti#e and letter of respondentsE and &2' the tarpaulin is an ele#tion propa%anda subje#t to re%ulation byC/=989C pursuant to its mandate under Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution. 3en#e, respondents#laim that the issuan#es orderin% its removal for bein% oversiBed are valid and #onstitutional.-$


"urin% the hearin% held on =ar#h -, 2-, the parties were dire#ted to file their respe#tive memorandawithin - days or by April -, 2-, ta5in% into #onsideration the intervenin% holidays.-


he issues, whi#h also served as %uide for the oral ar%uments, are2#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

6.

W3939R 39 22 19DRKARQ 2- +/6C9G/R"9R DQ 989C6/+ /116C9R =AJARKC/+ A+" 39 2719DRKARQ 2- /R"9R DQ 39 C/=989C 8AW "9PAR=9+ AR9 C/+46"9R9" JK")=9+4G16+A8/R"9R4GR94/8K6/+4 /1 39 C/=989C W36C3 W/K8" WARRA+ A R9*69W /1 364 C/KR *6A RK89

!? P966/+IE

A. W3939R P966/+9R4 *6/8A9" 39 369RARC3Q /1 C/KR4 "/CR6+9 A+"JKR64PRK"9+6A8 RK894 )/*9R+6+) APP9A84 1R/= C/=989C "9C646/+4E

D. A44K=6+) AR)K9+"/ 3A 39 A1/R9=9+6/+9" /R"9R4 AR9 +/ C/+46"9R9"JK")=9+4G16+A8 /R"9R4GR94/8K6/+4 /1 39 C/=989C, W3939R 39R9 AR99:C9P6/+A8 C6RCK=4A+C94 W36C3 W/K8" A88/W 364 C/KR / AL9C/)+6A+C9 /1 39 CA49IE

66.

W3939R 6 64 R989*A+ / "99R=6+9 W3939R 39 ARPAK86+4 AR9 ;P/866CA8 A"*9R649=9+<

/R ;989C6/+ PR/PA)A+"A< C/+46"9R6+) 3A P966/+9R 64 +/ A P/866CA8 CA+"6"A9IE

666.

W3939R 39 ARPAK86+4 AR9 A 1/R= /R 9:PR9446/+ &PR/9C9" 4P99C3', /R 989C6/+PR/PA)A+"AGP/866CA8 A"*9R649=9+IE

A. A44K=6+) AR)K9+"/ 3A 39 ARPAK86+4 AR9 A 1/R= /1 9:PR9446/+, W3939R39 C/=989C P/4494494 39 AK3/R6Q / R9)K8A9 39 4A=9IE

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


D. W3939R 364 1/R= /1 9:PR9446/+ =AQ D9 R9)K8A9"IE

6*.

W3939R 39 22 19DRKARQ 2- +/6C9G /R"9R DQ 989C6/+ /116C9R =AJARKC/+ A+" 39 2719DRKARQ 2- /R"9R DQ 39 C/=989C 8AW "9PAR=9+ *6/8A94 39 PR6+C6P89 /1 49PARA6/+ /1

C3KRC3 A+" 4A9IE IA+"

*.

W3939R 39 AC6/+ /1 39 P966/+9R4 6+ P/46+) 64 ARPAK86+ *6/8A94 39 C/+46K6/+A8PR6+C6P89 /1 49PARA6/+ /1 C3KRC3 A+" 4A9.

6PR/C9"KRA8 644K94

6.Ahis #ourts jurisdi#tion over C/=989C #ases

Respondents as5 that this petition be dismissed on the %round that the noti#e and letter are not final orders,

de#isions, rulin%s, or jud%ments of the C/=989C 9n Dan# issued in the e>er#ise of its adjudi#atory powers,reviewable via Rule !0 of the Rules of Court.2-


Rule !0 is not the e>#lusive remedy for all a#ts of the C/=989C. Rule !? is appli#able espe#ially to raiseobje#tions relatin% to a %rave abuse of dis#retion resultin% in the ouster of jurisdi#tion.22 As a spe#ial #ivila#tion, there must also be a showin% that there be no plain, speedy, and ade@uate remedy in the ordinary#ourse of the law.

Respondents #ontend that the assailed noti#e and letter are not subje#t to review by this #ourt, whose powerto review is ;limited only to final de#isions, rulin%s and orders of the C/=989C n 4anc rendered in thee>er#ise of its adjudi#atory or @uasi(judi#ial power.< 2 6nstead, respondents #laim that the assailed noti#e andletter are reviewable only by C/=989C itself pursuant to Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 2&' of the Constitution20 onC/=989Cs power to de#ide all @uestions affe#tin% ele#tions.2? Respondents invo5e the #ases of Ambil! 5r. v.C0MC ,2!Repol v. C0MC!27Soriano! 5r. v. C0MC ,2$ 4lanco v. C0MC!2and Caetano v.C0MC , to illustrate how judi#ial intervention is limited to final de#isions, orders, rulin%s and jud%ments

of the C/=989C 9n Dan#.-#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

hese #ases are not appli#able.

6n Ambil! 5r. v. C0MC! the losin% party in the %ubernatorial ra#e of 9astern 4amar filed the ele#tionprotest.2 At issue was the validity of the promul%ation of a C/=989C "ivision resolution. +o motion forre#onsideration was filed to raise this issue before the C/=989C 9n Dan#. his #ourt de#lared that it did nothave jurisdi#tion and #larified #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We have interpreted I4e#tion 7, Arti#le 6:(A of the Constitution0 to mean final orders! rulings anddecisions of the C/=989C rendered in the e>er#ise of its adjudi#atory or @uasi(judi#ial powers.< his de#isionmust be a final decision or resolution of the Comele# en banc! not of a division! #ertainly not an interlo#utoryorder of a division. he 4upreme Court has no power to review via #ertiorari, an interlo#utory order or evena final resolution of a "ivision of the Commission on 9le#tions.? &9mphasis in the ori%inal, #itations omitted'

3owever, in the ne>t #ase #ited by respondents, Repol v. C0MC , this #ourt provided e>#eptions to this%eneral rule. Repol was another ele#tion protest #ase, involvin% the mayoralty ele#tions in Pa%san%han,4amar.! his time, the #ase was brou%ht to this #ourt be#ause the C/=989C 1irst "ivision issued a status@uo ante order a%ainst the Re%ional rial Court e>e#utin% its de#ision pendin% appeal.7 his #ourts ponen#iadis#ussed the %eneral rule enun#iated in Ambil! 5r. that it #annot ta5e jurisdi#tion to review interlo#utoryorders of a C/=989C "ivision.$ 3owever, #onsistent with A4S,C4# 4roadcasting Corporation v.C0MC , it #larified the e>#eption#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


his Court, however, has ruled in the past that this pro#edural re@uirement Iof filin% a motion forre#onsideration may be %lossed over to prevent mis#arria%e of justi#e, when the issue involves the prin#ipleof so#ial justi#e or the prote#tion of labor, when the de#ision or resolution sou%ht to be set aside is a nullity,or when the need for relief is e>tremely ur%ent and #ertiorari is the only ade@uate and speedy remedyavailable.0

Dased on A4S,C4# , this #ourt #ould review orders and de#isions of C/=989C N in ele#toral #ontests N

despite not bein% reviewed by the C/=989C 9n Dan#, if #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

-' 6t will prevent the mis#arria%e of justi#eE

2' he issue involves a prin#iple of so#ial justi#eE

' he issue involves the prote#tion of laborE

0' he de#ision or resolution sou%ht to be set aside is a nullityE or

?' he need for relief is e>tremely ur%ent and #ertiorari is the onlyade@uate and speedy remedy available.

Kltimately, this #ourt too5 jurisdi#tion in Repol and de#ided that the status -uo ante order issued by theC/=989C "ivision was un#onstitutional.

Respondents also #ite Soriano! 5r. v. C0MC. his #ase was also an ele#tion protest #ase involvin%#andidates for the #ity #oun#il of =untinlupa City.0- Petitioners in Soriano! 5r. filed before this #ourt a petitionfor #ertiorari a%ainst an interlo#utory order of the C/=989C 1irst "ivision.02 While the petition was pendin%in this #ourt, the C/=989C 1irst "ivision dismissed the main ele#tion protest #ase.0Sorianoapplied the%eneral rule that only final orders should be @uestioned with this #ourt. he ponen#ia for this #ourt, however,a#5nowled%ed the e>#eptions to the %eneral rule in A4S,C4# .00


4lanco v. C0MC! another #ase #ited by respondents, was a dis@ualifi#ation #ase of one of the mayoralty#andidates of =ey#auayan, Dula#an.0? he C/=989C 4e#ond "ivision ruled that petitioner #ould not @ualifyfor the 27 ele#tions due to the findin%s in an administrative #ase that he en%a%ed in vote buyin% in the-? ele#tions.0! +o motion for re#onsideration was filed before the C/=989C 9n Dan#. his #ourt, however,too5 #o%niBan#e of this #ase applyin% one of the e>#eptions in A4S,C4# he assailed resolution was anullity.07


1inally, respondents #ited Caetano v. C0MC! a re#ent ele#tion protest #ase involvin% the mayoralty#andidates of a%ui% City.0$ Petitioner assailed a resolution of the C/=989C denyin% her motion forre#onsideration to dismiss the ele#tion protest petition for la#5 of form and substan#e.0 his #ourt #larifiedthe %eneral rule and refused to ta5e #o%niBan#e of the review of the C/=989C order. While re#o%niBin% thee>#eptions in A4S,C4# , this #ourt ruled that these e>#eptions did not apply.?


Amil, Jr., 'epol, Soriano, Jr., $lanco, an- Cayetano +(&- 3y r&*on-&n( -o no( o*&ra(& a*r&&-&n( (o ou( ()+ our( /ro (a+n ur+-+(+on o&r ()+ a&. A'' ()&& a& +(&- +no'&&'&(+on *ro(&( or -+ua'+/+a(+on a& /+'&- 3y ()& 'o+n an-+-a(& aa+n( ()& %+nn+nan-+-a(&.

In ()& *r&&n( a&, *&(+(+on&r ar& not an-+-a(& &&+n /or *u3'+ o//+&. T)&+r *&(+(+on + /+'&-(o a&r( ()&+r /un-a&n(a' r+)( (o &?*r&+on.

1urthermore, all these #ases #ited by respondents pertained to C/=989Cs e>er#ise of its adjudi#atory or

@uasi(judi#ial power. his #ase pertains to a#ts of C/=989C in the implementation of its re%ulatory powers.When it issued the noti#e and letter, the C/=989C was alle%edly enfor#in% ele#tion laws. #ralawred

6.DRule !?, %rave abuse of dis#retion,and limitations on politi#al spee#h

he main subje#t of this #ase is an alle%ed #onstitutional violation the infrin%ement on spee#h and the ;#hillin% effe#t< #aused by respondent C/=989Cs noti#e and letter.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Petitioners alle%e that respondents #ommitted %rave abuse of dis#retion amountin% to la#5 or e>#ess of jurisdi#tion in issuin% the noti#e?- dated 1ebruary 22, 2- and letter?2 dated 1ebruary 27, 2- orderin% theremoval of the tarpaulin.? 6t is their position that these infrin%e on their fundamental ri%ht to freedom ofe>pression and violate the prin#iple of separation of #hur#h and state and, thus, are un#onstitutional.?0


he jurisdi#tion of this #ourt over the subje#t matter is determined from the alle%ations in the petition.4ubje#t matter jurisdi#tion is defined as the authority ;to hear and determine #ases of the %eneral #lass to

whi#h the pro#eedin%s in @uestion belon% and is #onferred by the soverei%n authority whi#h or%aniBes the#ourt and defines its powers.< ?? "efinitely, the subje#t matter in this #ase is different from the #ases #ited byrespondents.

+othin% less than the ele#torates politi#al spee#h will be affe#ted by the restri#tions imposed by C/=989C.Politi#al spee#h is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move people to a#tion. 6t is#on#erned with the soverei%n ri%ht to #han%e the #ontours of power whether throu%h the ele#tion ofrepresentatives in a republi#an %overnment or the revision of the basi# te>t of the Constitution. he Bealwith whi#h we prote#t this 5ind of spee#h does not depend on our evaluation of the #o%en#y of the messa%e.+either do we assess whether we should prote#t spee#h based on the motives of C/=989C. We evaluaterestri#tions on freedom of e>pression from their effe#ts. We prote#t both spee#h and medium be#ause the@uality of this freedom in pra#ti#e will define the @uality of deliberation in our demo#rati# so#iety.

C/=989Cs noti#e and letter affe#t preferred spee#h. Respondents a#ts are #apable of repetition. Knder the#onditions in whi#h it was issued and in view of the novelty of this #ase, it #ould result in a ;#hillin% effe#t<

that would affe#t other #itiBens who want their voi#es heard on issues durin% the ele#tions. /ther #itiBenswho wish to e>press their views re%ardin% the ele#tion and other related issues may #hoose not to, for fearof reprisal or san#tion by the C/=989C.

"ire#t resort to this #ourt is allowed to avoid su#h pros#ribed #onditions. Rule !? is also the pro#eduralplatform for raisin% %rave abuse of dis#retion.

Doth parties point to #onstitutional provisions on jurisdi#tion. 1or petitioners, it referred to this #ourtse>panded e>er#ise of #ertiorari as provided by the Constitution as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Judi#ial power in#ludes the duty of the #ourts of justi#e to settle a#tual #ontroversies involvin% ri%hts whi#hare le%ally demandable and enfor#eable, and to determine (hether or not there has been a grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lac) or e?cess of Hurisdiction on the part of an branch or instrumentalit of the3overnment.?! &9mphasis supplied'

/n the other hand, respondents relied on its #onstitutional mandate to de#ide all@uestions affectingele#tions. Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 2&' of the Constitution, provides#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#. 2. he Commission on 9le#tions shall e>er#ise the followin% powers and fun#tions

. . . .

&' "e#ide, e>#ept those involvin% the ri%ht to vote, all @uestions affe#tin% ele#tions, in#ludin% determinationof the number and lo#ation of pollin% pla#es, appointment of ele#tion offi#ials and inspe#tors, andre%istration of voters.

Respondents relian#e on this provision is mispla#ed.

We are not #onfronted here with the @uestion of whether the C/=989C, in its e>er#ise of jurisdi#tion, %ravelyabused it. We are #onfronted with the @uestion as to whether the C/=989C had any jurisdi#tion at all withits a#ts threatenin% imminent #riminal a#tion effe#tively abrid%in% meanin%ful politi#al spee#h.

6t is #lear that the subje#t matter of the #ontroversy is the effe#t of C/=989Cs noti#e and letter on freespee#h. his does not fall under Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 2&' of the Constitution. he use of the word ;affe#tin%< in this provision #annot be interpreted to mean that C/=989C has the e>#lusive power tode#ideany an- a'' @uestions that arise durin% ele#tions. C/=989Cs #onstitutional #ompeten#ies durin%ele#tions should not operate to divest this #ourt of its own jurisdi#tion.

he more relevant provision for jurisdi#tion in this #ase is Arti#le *666, 4e#tion ?&-' of the Constitution. his

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


provision provides for this #ourts ori%inal jurisdi#tion over petitions for #ertiorari and prohibition. his shouldbe read alon%side the e>panded jurisdi#tion of the #ourt in Arti#le *666, 4e#tion - of the Constitution.

Certainly, a brea#h of the fundamental ri%ht of e>pression by C/=989C is %rave abuse of dis#retion. hus,the #onstitutionality of the noti#e and letter #omin% from C/=989C is within this #ourts power to review.

"urin% ele#tions, we have the power and the duty to #orre#t any %rave abuse of dis#retion or any a#t tainted

with un#onstitutionality on the part of any %overnment bran#h or instrumentality. his in#ludes a#tions bythe C/=989C. 1urthermore, it is this #ourts #onstitutional mandate to prote#t the people a%ainst%overnments infrin%ement of their fundamental ri%hts. his #onstitutional mandate outwei%hs the jurisdi#tion vested with the C/=989C.

6t will, thus, be manifest injusti#e if the #ourt does not ta5e jurisdi#tion over this #ase.#ralawred

6.C3ierar#hy of #ourts

his brin%s us to the issue of whether petitioners violated the do#trine of hierar#hy of #ourts in dire#tly filin%their petition before this #ourt.

Respondents #ontend that petitioners failure to file the proper suit with a lower #ourt of #on#urrent jurisdi#tion is suffi#ient %round for the dismissal of their petition.?7 hey add that observation of the

hierar#hy of #ourts is #ompulsory, #itin% $eirs of 4ertuldo $inog v. Melicor .?$ While respondents #laim thatwhile there are e>#eptions to the %eneral rule on hierar#hy of #ourts, none of these are present in this#ase.?


/n the other hand, petitioners #ite %ortich v. Corona! on this #ourts dis#retionary power to ta5e #o%niBan#eof a petition filed dire#tly to it if warranted by ;#ompellin% reasons, or Iby the nature and importan#e of theissues raised. . . .< !- Petitioners submit that there are ;e>#eptional and #ompellin% reasons to justify a dire#tresort Iwith this Court.< !2


6n 4aNe*! 5r. v. Concepcion!! we e>plained the ne#essity of the appli#ation of the hierar#hy of #ourts #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he Court must enjoin the observan#e of the poli#y on the hierar#hy of #ourts, and now affirms that thepoli#y is not to be i%nored without serious #onse@uen#es. he stri#tness of the poli#y is desi%ned to shieldthe Court from havin% to deal with #auses that are also well within the #ompeten#e of the lower #ourts, andthus leave time to the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tas5s that theConstitution has assi%ned to it. he Court may a#t on petitions for the e>traordinary writs of #ertiorari,prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely ne#essary or when serious and important reasons e>ist to justify an e>#eption to the poli#y.!0

6n DaeB, we also elaborated on the reasons why lower #ourts are allowed to issue writs of #ertiorari,prohibition, and mandamus, #itin% Vergara v. Suelto!?


he 4upreme Court is a #ourt of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfa#torily perform the fun#tionsassi%ned to it by the fundamental #harter and immemorial tradition. 6t #annot and should not be burdenedwith the tas5 of dealin% with #auses in the first instan#e. 6ts ori%inal jurisdi#tion to issue the so(#allede>traordinary writs should be e>er#ised only where absolutely ne#essary or where serious and importantreasons e>ist therefore. 3en#e, that jurisdi#tion should %enerally be e>er#ised relative to a#tions orpro#eedin%s before the Court of Appeals, or before #onstitutional or other tribunals, bodies or a%en#ieswhose a#ts for some reason or another are not #ontrollable by the Court of Appeals. Where the issuan#e ofan e>traordinary writ is also within the #ompeten#e of the Court of Appeals or a Re%ional rial Court, it is ineither of these #ourts that the spe#ifi# a#tion for the writs pro#urement must be presented. his is andshould #ontinue to be the poli#y in this re%ard, a poli#y that #ourts and lawyers must stri#tlyobserve.!! &9mphasis omitted'

he do#trine that re@uires respe#t for the hierar#hy of #ourts was #reated by this #ourt to ensure that everylevel of the judi#iary performs its desi%nated roles in an effe#tive and effi#ient manner. rial #ourts do notonly determine the fa#ts from the evaluation of the eviden#e presented before them. hey are li5ewise#ompetent to determine issues of law whi#h may in#lude the validity of an ordinan#e, statute, or even ane>e#utive issuan#e in relation to the Constitution.!7 o effe#tively perform these fun#tions, they are

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


territorially or%aniBed into re%ions and then into bran#hes. heir writs %enerally rea#h within those territorialboundaries. +e#essarily, they mostly perform the all(important tas5 of inferrin% the fa#ts from the eviden#eas these are physi#ally presented before them. 6n many instan#es, the fa#ts o##ur within their territorial jurisdi#tion, whi#h properly present the Ua#tual #ase that ma5es ripe a determination of the #onstitutionalityof su#h a#tion. he #onse@uen#es, of #ourse, would be national in s#ope. here are, however, some #aseswhere resort to #ourts at their level would not be pra#ti#al #onsiderin% their de#isions #ould still be appealedbefore the hi%her #ourts, su#h as the Court of Appeals.

he Court of Appeals is primarily desi%ned as an appellate #ourt that reviews the determination of fa#ts andlaw made by the trial #ourts. 6t is #olle%iate in nature. his nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the a#tions of the trial #ourt. Dut the Court of Appeals also has ori%inal jurisdi#tion over most spe#ial #ivila#tions. Knli5e the trial #ourts, its writs #an have a nationwide s#ope. 6t is #ompetent to determine fa#tsand, ideally, should a#t on #onstitutional issues that may not ne#essarily be novel unless there are fa#tual@uestions to determine.

his #ourt, on the other hand, leads the judi#iary by brea5in% new %round or further reiteratin% N in theli%ht of new #ir#umstan#es or in the li%ht of some #onfusions of ben#h or bar N e>istin% pre#edents. Ratherthan a #ourt of first instan#e or as a repetition of the a#tions of the Court of Appeals, this #ourt promul%atesthese do#trinal devi#es in order that it truly performs that role.

6n other words, the 4upreme Courts role to interpret the Constitution and a#t in order to prote#t#onstitutional ri%hts when these be#ome e>i%ent should not be emas#ulated by the do#trine in respe#t of the

hierar#hy of #ourts. hat has never been the purpose of su#h do#trine.

hus, the do#trine of hierar#hy of #ourts is not an iron(#lad rule.!$ his #ourt has ;full dis#retionary power tota5e #o%niBan#e and assume jurisdi#tion Iover spe#ial #ivil a#tions for #ertiorari . . . filed dire#tly with it fore>#eptionally #ompellin% reasons! or if warranted by the nature of the issues #learly and spe#ifi#ally raisedin the petition.< 7 As #orre#tly pointed out by petitioners,7- we have provided e>#eptions to this do#trine

1irst, a dire#t resort to this #ourt is allowed when there are %enuine issues of #onstitutionality that must beaddressed at the most immediate time. A dire#t resort to this #ourt in#ludes availin% of the remedies of#ertiorari and prohibition to assail the #onstitutionality of a#tions of both le%islative and e>e#utive bran#hesof the %overnment.72


6n this #ase, the assailed issuan#es of respondents prejudi#e not only petitioners ri%ht to freedom ofe>pression in the present #ase, but also of others in future similar #ases. he #ase before this #ourt involvesan a#tive effort on the part of the ele#torate to reform the politi#al lands#ape. his has be#ome a rare

o##asion when private #itiBens a#tively en%a%e the publi# in politi#al dis#ourse. o @uote an eminent politi#altheorist#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ihe theory of freedom of e>pression involves more than a te#hni@ue for arrivin% at better so#ial jud%mentsthrou%h demo#rati# pro#edures. 6t #omprehends a vision of so#iety, a faith and a whole way of life. hetheory %rew out of an a%e that was awa5ened and invi%orated by the idea of new so#iety in whi#h manOsmind was free, his fate determined by his own powers of reason, and his prospe#ts of #reatin% a rational andenli%htened #iviliBation virtually unlimited. 6t is put forward as a pres#ription for attainin% a #reative,pro%ressive, e>#itin% and intelle#tually robust #ommunity. 6t #ontemplates a mode of life that, throu%hen#oura%in% toleration, s5epti#ism, reason and initiative, will allow man to realiBe his full potentialities. 6tspurns the alternative of a so#iety that is tyranni#al, #onformist, irrational and sta%nant.7

6n a demo#ra#y, the #itiBens ri%ht to freely parti#ipate in the e>#han%e of ideas in furtheran#e of politi#alde#ision(ma5in% is re#o%niBed. 6t deserves the hi%hest prote#tion the #ourts may provide, as publi#

parti#ipation in nation(buildin% is a fundamental prin#iple in our Constitution. As su#h, their ri%ht to en%a%ein free e>pression of ideas must be %iven immediate prote#tion by this #ourt.

A se#ond e>#eption is when the issues involved are of trans#endental importan#e.70 6n these #ases, theimminen#e and #larity of the threat to fundamental #onstitutional ri%hts outwei%h the ne#essity forpruden#e. he do#trine relatin% to #onstitutional issues of trans#endental importan#e prevents #ourts fromthe paralysis of pro#edural ni#eties when #learly fa#ed with the need for substantial prote#tion.

6n the #ase before this #ourt, there is a #lear threat to the paramount ri%ht of freedom of spee#h andfreedom of e>pression whi#h warrants invo#ation of relief from this #ourt. he prin#iples laid down in this

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


de#ision will li5ely influen#e the dis#ourse of freedom of spee#h in the future, espe#ially in the #onte>t ofele#tions. he ri%ht to suffra%e not only in#ludes the ri%ht to vote for ones #hosen #andidate, but also theri%ht to vo#aliBe that #hoi#e to the publi# in %eneral, in the hope of influen#in% their votes. 6t may be saidthat in an ele#tion year, the ri%ht to vote ne#essarily in#ludes the ri%ht to free spee#h and e>pression. heprote#tion of these fundamental #onstitutional ri%hts, therefore, allows for the immediate resort to this#ourt.

hird, #ases of first impression7?

warrant a dire#t resort to this #ourt. 6n #ases of first impression, no jurispruden#e yet e>ists that will %uide the lower #ourts on this matter. 6n 3overnment of the >nited Statesv. Purganan!7! this #ourt too5 #o%niBan#e of the #ase as a matter of first impression that may %uide thelower #ourts#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6n the interest of justi#e and to settle on#e and for all the important issue of bail in e>tradition pro#eedin%s,we deem it best to ta5e #o%niBan#e of the present #ase. 4u#h pro#eedin%s #onstitute a matter of firstimpression over whi#h there is, as yet, no lo#al jurispruden#e to %uide lower #ourts.77

his #ourt finds that this is indeed a #ase of first impression involvin% as it does the issue of whether theri%ht of suffra%e in#ludes the ri%ht of freedom of e>pression. his is a @uestion whi#h this #ourt has yet toprovide substantial answers to, throu%h jurispruden#e. hus, dire#t resort to this #ourt is allowed.

1ourth, the #onstitutional issues raised are better de#ided by this #ourt. 6n Drilon v. im,7$ this #ourt held

that#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

. . . it will be prudent for su#h #ourts, if only out of a be#omin% modesty, to defer to the hi%her jud%ment ofthis Court in the #onsideration of its validity, whi#h is better determined after a thorou%h deliberation by a#olle%iate body and with the #on#urren#e of the majority of those who parti#ipated in itsdis#ussion.7 &Citation omitted'

6n this #ase, it is this #ourt, with its #onstitutionally enshrined judi#ial power, that #an rule with finality onwhether C/=989C #ommitted %rave abuse of dis#retion or performed a#ts #ontrary to the Constitutionthrou%h the assailed issuan#es.

1ifth, the time element presented in this #ase #annot be i%nored. his #ase was filed durin% the 2-ele#tion period. Althou%h the ele#tions have already been #on#luded, future #ases may be filed thatne#essitate ur%en#y in its resolution. 9>i%en#y in #ertain situations would @ualify as an e>#eption for dire#tresort to this #ourt.

4i>th, the filed petition reviews the a#t of a #onstitutional or%an. C/=989C is a #onstitutional body. 6n Albanov. Arran* ,$ #ited by petitioners, this #ourt held that ;Iit is easy to realiBe the #haos that would ensue if theCourt of 1irst 6nstan#e of ea#h and every provin#e were Ito arro%ate itself the power to disre%ard, suspend,or #ontradi#t any order of the Commission on 9le#tions that #onstitutional body would be speedily redu#edto impoten#e.< $-


6n this #ase, if petitioners sou%ht to annul the a#tions of C/=989C throu%h pursuin% remedies with the lower#ourts, any rulin% on their part would not have been bindin% for other #itiBens whom respondents may pla#ein the same situation. Desides, this #ourt affords %reat respe#t to the Constitution and the powers and dutiesimposed upon C/=989C. 3en#e, a rulin% by this #ourt would be in the best interest of respondents, in orderthat their a#tions may be %uided a##ordin%ly in the future.

4eventh, petitioners ri%htly #laim that they had no other plain, speedy, and ade@uate remedy in the ordinary

#ourse of law that #ould free them from the injurious effe#ts of respondents a#ts in violation of their ri%ht tofreedom of e>pression.

6n this #ase, the reper#ussions of the assailed issuan#es on this basi# ri%ht #onstitute an e>#eptionally#ompellin% reason to justify the dire#t resort to this #ourt. he la#5 of other suffi#ient remedies in the #ourseof law alone is suffi#ient %round to allow dire#t resort to this #ourt.

9i%hth, the petition in#ludes @uestions that are ;di#tated by publi# welfare and the advan#ement of publi#poli#y, or demanded by the broader interest of justi#e, or the orders #omplained of were found to be patentnullities, or the appeal was #onsidered as #learly an inappropriate remedy.< $2 6n the past, @uestions similar tothese whi#h this #ourt ruled on immediately despite the do#trine of hierar#hy of #ourts in#luded #itiBens

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


ri%ht to bear arms,$ %overnment #ontra#ts involvin% moderniBation of voters re%istration lists,$0 and thestatus and e>isten#e of a publi# offi#e.$?


his #ase also poses a @uestion of similar, if not %reater import. 3en#e, a dire#t a#tion to this #ourt ispermitted.

6t is not, however, ne#essary that all of these e>#eptions must o##ur at the same time to justify a dire#t

resort to this #ourt. While %enerally, the hierar#hy of #ourts is respe#ted, the present #ase falls under there#o%niBed e>#eptions and, as su#h, may be resolved by this #ourt dire#tly.#ralawred

6."he #on#ept of a politi#al @uestion

Respondents ar%ue further that the siBe limitation and its reasonableness is a politi#al @uestion, hen#e notwithin the ambit of this #ourts power of review. hey #ite Justi#e *itu%s separate opinion in 0smeNa v.C0MC $! to support their position #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6t mi%ht be worth mentionin% that 4e#tion 2!, Arti#le 66, of the Constitution also states that the ;4tate shall%uarantee e@ual a##ess to opportunities for publi# servi#e, and prohibit politi#al dynasties as may be definedby law.< 6 see neither Arti#le 6: &C'&0' nor 4e#tion 2!, Arti#le 66, of the Constitution to be all that adversarialor irre#on#ilably in#onsistent with the ri%ht of free e>pression. 6n any event, the latter, bein% one of %eneralappli#ation, must yield to the spe#ifi# demands of the Constitution. he freedom of e>pression #on#ededly

holds, it is true, a vanta%e point in hierar#hy of #onstitutionally(enshrined ri%hts but, li5e all fundamentalri%hts, it is not without limitations.

he #ase is not about a fi%ht between the ;ri#h< and the ;poor< or between the ;powerful< and the ;wea5< inour so#iety but it is to me a %enuine attempt on the part of Con%ress and the Commission on 9le#tions toensure that all #andidates are %iven an e@ual #han#e to media #overa%e and thereby be e@ually per#eived as%ivin% real life to the #andidates ri%ht of free e>pression rather than bein% viewed as an undue restri#tion of that freedom. he wisdom in the ena#tment of the law, i.e., that whi#h the le%islature deems to be best in%ivin% life to the Constitutional mandate, is not for the Court to @uestionE it is a matter that lies beyond thenormal prero%atives of the Court to pass upon.$7

his separate opinion is #o%ent for the purpose it was said. Dut it is not in point in this #ase.

he present petition does not involve a dispute between the ri#h and poor, or the powerful and wea5, on

their e@ual opportunities for media #overa%e of #andidates and their ri%ht to freedom of e>pression. his#ase #on#erns the ri%ht of petitioners, who are non(#andidates, to post the tarpaulin in their privateproperty, as an e>er#ise of their ri%ht of free e>pression. "espite the invo#ation of the politi#al @uestiondo#trine by respondents, this #ourt is not pros#ribed from de#idin% on the merits of this #ase.

6n 'aNada v. Cuenco,$$ this #ourt previously elaborated on the #on#ept of what #onstitutes a politi#al@uestion#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

What is %enerally meant, when it is said that a @uestion is politi#al, and not judi#ial, is that it is a matterwhi#h is to be e>er#ised by the people in their primary politi#al #apa#ity, or that it has been spe#ifi#allydele%ated to some other department or parti#ular offi#er of the %overnment, with dis#retionary power toa#t.$ &9mphasis omitted'

6t is not for this #ourt to rehearse and re(ena#t politi#al debates on what the te>t of the law should be. 6n

politi#al forums, parti#ularly the le%islature, the #reation of the te>t of the law is based on a %eneraldis#ussion of fa#tual #ir#umstan#es, broadly #onstrued in order to allow for %eneral appli#ation by thee>e#utive bran#h. hus, the #reation of the law is not limited by parti#ular and spe#ifi# fa#ts that affe#t theri%hts of #ertain individuals, per se.

Courts, on the other hand, rule on adversarial positions based on e>istin% fa#ts established on a spe#ifi##ase(to(#ase basis, where parties affe#ted by the le%al provision see5 the #ourts understandin% of the law.

he #omplementary nature of the politi#al and judi#ial bran#hes of %overnment is essential in order toensure that the ri%hts of the %eneral publi# are upheld at all times. 6n order to preserve this balan#e,bran#hes of %overnment must afford due respe#t and deferen#e for the duties and fun#tions #onstitutionally

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


dele%ated to the other. Courts #annot rush to invalidate a law or rule. Pruden#e di#tates that we are #arefulnot to veto politi#al a#ts unless we #an #raft do#trine narrowly tailored to the #ir#umstan#es of the #ase.

he #ase before this #ourt does not #all for the e>er#ise of pruden#e or modesty. here is no politi#al@uestion. 6t #an be a#ted upon by this #ourt throu%h the e>panded jurisdi#tion %ranted to this #ourt throu%hArti#le *666, 4e#tion - of the Constitution.

A politi#al @uestion arises in #onstitutional issues relatin% to the powers or #ompeten#e of different a%en#iesand departments of the e>e#utive or those of the le%islature. he politi#al @uestion do#trine is used as adefense when the petition as5s this #ourt to nullify #ertain a#ts that are e>#lusively within the domain oftheir respe#tive #ompeten#ies, as provided by the Constitution or the law. 6n su#h situation, presumptively,this #ourt should a#t with deferen#e. 6t will de#line to void an a#t unless the e>er#ise of that power was so#apri#ious and arbitrary so as to amount to %rave abuse of dis#retion.

he #on#ept of a politi#al @uestion, however, never pre#ludes judi#ial review when the a#t of a #onstitutionalor%an infrin%es upon a fundamental individual or #olle#tive ri%ht. 9ven assumin% ar%uendo that theC/=989C did have the dis#retion to #hoose the manner of re%ulation of the tarpaulin in @uestion, it #annotdo so by abrid%in% the fundamental ri%ht to e>pression.

Marcos v. Manglapus limited the use of the politi#al @uestion do#trine#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

When politi#al @uestions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has

been a %rave abuse of dis#retion amountin% to la#5 or e>#ess of jurisdi#tion on the part of the offi#ial whosea#tion is bein% @uestioned. 6f %rave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its jud%ment forthat of the offi#ial #on#erned and de#ide a matter whi#h by its nature or by law is for the latter alone tode#ide.-

3ow this #ourt has #hosen to address the politi#al @uestion do#trine has under%one an evolution sin#e thetime that it had been first invo5ed in Marcos v. Manglapus. 6n#reasin%ly, this #ourt has ta5en the histori#aland so#ial #onte>t of the #ase and the relevan#e of pronoun#ements of #arefully and narrowly tailored#onstitutional do#trines. his trend was followed in #ases su#h as Da*a v. Singson2 and Coseteng v. Mitra 5r.


Da*a and Coseteng involved a @uestion as to the appli#ation of Arti#le *6, 4e#tion -$ of the -$7Constitution involvin% the removal of petitioners from the Commission on Appointments. 6n times past, thiswould have involved a @uintessentially politi#al @uestion as it related to the dominan#e of politi#al parties in

Con%ress. 3owever, in these #ases, this #ourt e>er#ised its power of judi#ial review notin% that there@uirement of interpretin% the #onstitutional provision involved the le%ality and not the wisdom of a mannerby whi#h a #onstitutional duty or power was e>er#ised. his approa#h was a%ain reiterated inDefensorSantiago v. 3uingona! 5r .0


6n "ntegrated 4ar of the Philippines v. Kamora,? this #ourt de#lared a%ain that the possible e>isten#e of apoliti#al @uestion did not bar an e>amination of whether the e>er#ise of dis#retion was done with %raveabuse of dis#retion. 6n that #ase, this #ourt ruled on the @uestion of whether there was %rave abuse ofdis#retion in the Presidents use of his power to #all out the armed for#es to prevent and suppress lawlessviolen#e.

6n strada v. Desierto!! this #ourt ruled that the le%al @uestion as to whether a former President resi%nedwas not a politi#al @uestion even if the #onse@uen#es would be to as#ertain the politi#al le%itima#y of asu##essor President.

=any #onstitutional #ases arise from politi#al #rises. he a#tors in su#h #rises may use the resolution of#onstitutional issues as levera%e. Dut the e>panded jurisdi#tion of this #ourt now mandates a duty for it toe>er#ise its power of judi#ial review e>pandin% on prin#iples that may avert #atastrophe or resolve so#ial#onfli#t.

his #ourts understandin% of the politi#al @uestion has not been stati# or unbendin%. 6n lamas v. ?ecutiveSecretar 0scar 0rbos!7 this #ourt held #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

While it is true that #ourts #annot in@uire into the manner in whi#h the PresidentOs dis#retionary powers aree>er#ised or into the wisdom for its e>er#ise, it is also a settled rule that when the issue involved #on#erns

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


the validity of su#h dis#retionary powers or whether said powers are within the limits pres#ribed by theConstitution, We will not de#line to e>er#ise our power of judi#ial review. And su#h review does not#onstitute a modifi#ation or #orre#tion of the a#t of the President, nor does it #onstitute interferen#e with thefun#tions of the President.$

he #on#ept of judi#ial power in relation to the #on#ept of the politi#al @uestion was dis#ussed moste>tensively in %rancisco v. $R' . 6n this #ase, the 3ouse of Representatives ar%ued that the @uestion of

the validity of the se#ond impea#hment #omplaint that was filed a%ainst former Chief Justi#e 3ilario "avidewas a politi#al @uestion beyond the ambit of this #ourt. 1ormer Chief Justi#e Reynato Puno elaborated on this#on#ept in his #on#urrin% and dissentin% opinion #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

o be sure, the for#e to impu%n the jurisdi#tion of this Court be#omes more feeble in li%ht of the newConstitution whi#h e>panded the definition of judi#ial power as in#ludin% ;the duty of the #ourts of justi#e tosettle a#tual #ontroversies involvin% ri%hts whi#h are le%ally demandable and enfor#eable, and to determinewhether or not there has been a %rave abuse of dis#retion amountin% to la#5 or e>#ess of jurisdi#tion on thepart of any bran#h or instrumentality of the )overnment.< As well observed by retired Justi#e 6sa%ani CruB,this e>panded definition of judi#ial power #onsiderably #onstri#ted the s#ope of politi#al @uestion. 3e opinedthat the lan%ua%e luminously su%%ests that this duty &and power' is available even a%ainst the e>e#utiveand le%islative departments in#ludin% the President and the Con%ress, in the e>er#ise of their discretionar po(ers.- &9mphasis in the ori%inal, #itations omitted'

1ran#is#o also provides the #ases whi#h show the evolution of the politi#al @uestion, as applied in thefollowin% #ases#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6n Marcos v. Manglapus, this Court, spea5in% throu%h =adame Justi#e 6rene Cortes, held ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

he present Constitution limits resort to the politi#al @uestion do#trine and broadens the s#ope of judi#ialin@uiry into areas whi#h the Court, under previous #onstitutions, would have normally left to the politi#aldepartments to de#ide. > > >

6n 4eng*on v. Senate 4lue Ribbon Committee, throu%h Justi#e eodoro Padilla, this Court de#lared ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

he ;allo#ation of #onstitutional boundaries< is a tas5 that this Court must perform under the Constitution.=oreover, as held in a re#ent #ase, @the political -uestion doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to Hudicial determination of the rival claims. 'he Hurisdiction to delimit constitutional oundaries has een *iven

to this Court. t cannot adicate that oli*ation mandated b the :OEG Constitution! although said provision b no means does a(a (ith the applicabilit of the principle in appropriate cases. &9mphasis anditali#s supplied'

And in Da*a v. Singson! spea5in% throu%h Justi#e 6sa%ani CruB, this Court ruledChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

6n the #ase now before us, the jurisdi#tional obje#tion be#omes even less tenable and de#isive. 'he reasonis that! even if (e (ere to assume that the issue presented before us (as political in nature! (e (ould stillnot be precluded from resolving it under the e3panded Hurisdiction conferred upon us that no( covers! in proper cases! even the political -uestion. > > > &9mphasis and itali#s supplied.'

. . . .

6n our jurisdi#tion, the determination of whether an issue involves a truly politi#al and non(justi#iable@uestion lies in the answer to the @uestion of whether there are #onstitutionally imposed limits on powers orfun#tions #onferred upon politi#al bodies. 6f there are, then our #ourts are duty(bound to e>amine whetherthe bran#h or instrumentality of the %overnment properly a#ted within su#h limits.-- &Citations omitted'

As stated in %rancisco, a politi#al @uestion will not be #onsidered justi#iable if there are no #onstitutionally

imposed limits on powers or fun#tions #onferred upon politi#al bodies. 3en#e, the e>isten#e of#onstitutionally imposed limits justifies subje#tin% the offi#ial a#tions of the body to the s#rutiny and reviewof this #ourt.

6n this #ase, the Dill of Ri%hts %ives the utmost deferen#e to the ri%ht to free spee#h. Any instan#e that thisri%ht may be abrid%ed demands judi#ial s#rutiny. 6t does not fall s@uarely into any doubt that a politi#al@uestion brin%s.#ralawred

6.99>haustion of administrative remedies

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Respondents alle%e that petitioners violated the prin#iple of e>haustion of administrative remedies.Respondents insist that petitioners should have first brou%ht the matter to the C/=989C 9n Dan# or any ofits divisions.-2


Respondents point out that petitioners failed to #omply with the re@uirement in Rule !? that ;there is noappeal, or any plain, speedy, and ade@uate remedy in the ordinary #ourse of law.< - hey add that the

proper venue to assail the validity of the assailed issuan#es was in the #ourse of an administrative hearin% tobe #ondu#ted by C/=989C.-0 6n the event that an ele#tion offense is filed a%ainst petitioners for postin% thetarpaulin, they #laim that petitioners should resort to the remedies pres#ribed in Rule 0 of the C/=989CRules of Pro#edure.-?


he ar%ument on e>haustion of administrative remedies is not proper in this #ase.

"espite the alle%ed non(e>haustion of administrative remedies, it is #lear that the #ontroversy is already ripefor adjudi#ation. Ripeness is the ;prere@uisite that somethin% had by then been a##omplished or performedby either bran#h Ior in this #ase, or%an of %overnment before a #ourt may #ome into the pi#ture.< -!


Petitioners e>er#ise of their ri%ht to spee#h, %iven the messa%e and their medium, had understandablerelevan#e espe#ially durin% the ele#tions. C/=989Cs letter threatenin% the filin% of the ele#tion offensea%ainst petitioners is already an a#tionable infrin%ement of this ri%ht. he impendin% threat of #riminalliti%ation is enou%h to #urtail petitioners spee#h.

6n the #onte>t of this #ase, e>haustion of their administrative remedies as C/=989C su%%ested in theirpleadin%s prolon%s the violation of their freedom of spee#h.

Politi#al spee#h enjoys preferred prote#tion within our #onstitutional order. 6n Chave* v. 3on*ales,-7Justi#eCarpio in a separate opinion emphasiBed ;Iif ever there is a hierar#hy of prote#ted e>pressions, politi#ale>pression would o##upy the hi%hest ran5, and amon% different 5inds of politi#al e>pression, the subje#t offair and honest ele#tions would be at the top.< -$ 4overei%nty resides in the people.- Politi#al spee#h is adire#t e>er#ise of the soverei%nty. he prin#iple of e>haustion of administrative remedies yields in order toprote#t this fundamental ri%ht.

9ven assumin% that the prin#iple of e>haustion of administrative remedies is appli#able, the #urrent#ontroversy is within the e>#eptions to the prin#iple. 6n Chua v. Ang!-- this #ourt held #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

/n the other hand, prior e>haustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with and judi#ial a#tionmay be validly resorted to immediately &a' when there is a violation of due pro#essE &b' (hen the issueinvolved is purel a legal -uestionE &#' when the administrative a#tion is patently ille%al amountin% to la#5 ore>#ess of jurisdi#tionE &d' when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative a%en#y #on#ernedE &e'when there is irreparable injuryE &f' when the respondent is a department se#retary whose a#ts as an altere%o of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latterE &%' (hen to re-uire e?haustion ofadministrative remedies (ould be unreasonableE &h' when it would amount to a nullifi#ation of a #laimE &i'when the subje#t matter is a private land in land #ase pro#eedin%sE &j' when the rule does not provide aplain, speedy and ade@uate remedyE or &5'(hen there are circumstances indicating the urgenc of Hudicialintervention.< --- &9mphasis supplied, #itation omitted'

he #ir#umstan#es emphasiBed are s@uarely appli#able with the present #ase. 1irst, petitioners alle%e thatthe assailed issuan#es violated their ri%ht to freedom of e>pression and the prin#iple of separation of #hur#hand state. his is a purely le%al @uestion. 4e#ond, the #ir#umstan#es of the present #ase indi#ate theur%en#y of judi#ial intervention #onsiderin% the issue then on the R3 8aw as well as the up#omin% ele#tions.

hus, to re@uire the e>haustion of administrative remedies in this #ase would be unreasonable.

ime and a%ain, we have held that this #ourt ;has the power to rela> or suspend the rules or to e>#ept a#ase from their operation when #ompellin% reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of justi#e re@uires it,Iand when Iwhat #onstitutes Ias %ood and suffi#ient #ause that will merit suspension of the rules isdis#retionary upon the #ourt<.--2 Certainly, this #ase of first impression where C/=989C has threatened toprose#ute private parties who see5 to parti#ipate in the ele#tions by #allin% attention to issues they wantdebated by the publi# in the manner they feel would be effe#tive is one of those #ases. #ralawred

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


664KD4A+6*9 644K94

66.AC/=989C had no le%al basis

to re%ulate e>pressionsmade by private #itiBens

Respondents #ite the Constitution, laws, and jurispruden#e to support their position that they had the powerto re%ulate the tarpaulin.-- 3owever, all of these provisions pertain to #andidates and politi#al parties.Petitioners are not #andidates. +either do they belon% to any politi#al party. C/=989C does not have theauthority to re%ulate the enjoyment of the preferred ri%ht to freedom of e>pression e>er#ised by a non(#andidate in this #ase.#ralawred

66.A.-

1irst, respondents #ite Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution, whi#h provides#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#tion 0. he Commission may, durin% the ele#tion period, supervise or re%ulate the enjoyment orutiliBation of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other publi# utilities, media of#ommuni#ation or information, all %rants, spe#ial privile%es, or #on#essions %ranted by the )overnment orany subdivision, a%en#y, or instrumentality thereof, in#ludin% any %overnment(owned or #ontrolled

#orporation or its subsidiary. 4u#h supervision or re%ulation shall aim to ensure e@ual opportunity, time, andspa#e, and the ri%ht to reply, in#ludin% reasonable, e@ual rates therefor, for publi# information #ampai%nsand forums among candidates in #onne#tion with the obje#tive of holdin% free, orderly, honest, pea#eful, and#redible ele#tions.--0 &9mphasis supplied'

Sanidad v. C0MC --? involved the rules promul%ated by C/=989C durin% the plebis#ite for the #reation ofthe Cordillera Autonomous Re%ion.--! Columnist Pablito *. 4anidad @uestioned the provision prohibitin% journalists from #overin% plebis#ite issues on the day before and on plebis#ite day.--7 4anidad ar%ued thatthe prohibition was a violation of the ;#onstitutional %uarantees of the freedom of e>pression and of thepress. . . .< --$ We held that the ;evil sou%ht to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that afran#hise holder may favor or %ive any undue advanta%e to a #andidate in terms of advertisin% spa#e orradio or television time.< -- his #ourt found that ;Imedia pra#titioners e>er#isin% their freedom ofe>pression durin% plebis#ite periods are neither the fran#hise holders nor the #andidatesI,< -2 thus, theirri%ht to e>pression durin% this period may not be re%ulated by C/=989C.-2-


4imilar to the media, petitioners in the #ase at bar are neither fran#hise holders nor #andidates.#ralawred

66.A.2

Respondents li5ewise #ite Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 2&7' of the Constitution as follows-22#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

4e#. 2. he Commission on 9le#tions shall e>er#ise the followin% powers and fun#tions ChanRobles*irtualawlibrary

. . . .

&7' Re#ommend to the Con%ress effe#tive measures to minimiBe ele#tion spendin%, in#ludin% limitation ofpla#es where propa%anda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penaliBe all forms of election frauds!offenses! malpractices! and nuisance candidates. &9mphasis supplied'

Dased on the enumeration made on a#ts that may be penaliBed, it will be inferred that this provision onlyaffe#ts #andidates.

Petitioners assail the ;+oti#e to Remove Campai%n =aterials< issued by C/=989C. his was followed by theassailed letter re%ardin% the ;ele#tion propa%anda material posted on the #hur#h vi#inity promotin% for ora%ainst the #andidates and party(list %roups. . . .< -2 4e#tion of the 1air 9le#tion A#t-20 on the postin% of#ampai%n materials only mentions ;parties< and ;#andidates< #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#. . Postin% of Campai%n =aterials. ( he C/=989C may authoriBe political parties and part,listgroups to ere#t #ommon poster areas for their #andidates in not more than ten &-' publi# pla#es su#h as

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


plaBas, mar5ets, baran%ay #enters and the li5e, wherein candidates can post! displa or e?hibit election propagandaB Provided, hat the siBe of the poster areas shall not e>#eed twelve &-2' by si>teen &-!' feet orits e@uivalent.

6ndependent candidates with no politi#al parties may li5ewise be authoriBed to ere#t #ommon poster areas innot more than ten &-' publi# pla#es, the siBe of whi#h shall not e>#eed four &0' by si> &!' feet or itse@uivalent.

Candidates ma post an la(ful propaganda material in private pla#es with the #onsent of the ownerthereof, and in publi# pla#es or property whi#h shall be allo#ated e@uitably and impartially amon% the#andidates. &9mphasis supplied'

4imilarly, 4e#tion -7 of C/=989C Resolution +o. !-?, the rules and re%ulations implementin% the 1air9le#tion A#t, provides as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ -7. Postin% of Campai%n =aterials. ( Parties and candidates may post any lawful #ampai%nmaterial in

a. AuthoriBed #ommon poster areas in publi# pla#es subje#t to the re@uirements andGorlimitations set forth in the ne>t followin% se#tionE and

b. Private pla#es provided it has the #onsent of the owner thereof.

he postin% of #ampai%n materials in publi# pla#es outside of the desi%nated #ommonposter areas and those enumerated under 4e#tion 7 &%' of these Rules and the li5e isprohibited. Persons postin% the same shall be liable to%ether with the #andidates and otherpersons who #aused the postin%. 6t will be presumed that the #andidates and parties #ausedthe postin% of #ampai%n materials outside the #ommon poster areas if they do not removethe same within three &' days from noti#e whi#h shall be issued by the 9le#tion /ffi#er ofthe #ity or muni#ipality where the unlawful ele#tion propa%anda are posted or displayed.

=embers of the P+P and other law enfor#ement a%en#ies #alled upon by the 9le#tion /ffi#eror other offi#ials of the C/=989C shall apprehend the violators #au%ht in the a#t, and filethe appropriate #har%es a%ainst them. &9mphasis supplied'

Respondents #onsidered the tarpaulin as a #ampai%n material in their issuan#es. he above provisionsre%ulatin% the postin% of #ampai%n materials only apply to #andidates and politi#al parties, and petitionersare neither of the two.

4e#tion of Republi# A#t +o. ! on ;8awful 9le#tion Propa%anda< also states that these are ;allowed forall re%istered politi#al parties, national, re%ional, se#toral parties or or%aniBations parti#ipatin% under theparty(list ele#tions and for all bona fide #andidates see5in% national and lo#al ele#tive positions subje#t tothe limitation on authoriBed e>penses of #andidates and politi#al parties. . . .< 4e#tion ! of C/=989CResolution +o. !-? provides for a similar wordin%.

hese provisions show that ele#tion propa%anda refers to matter done by or on behalf of and in #oordinationwith #andidates and politi#al parties. 4ome level of #oordination with the #andidates and politi#al parties forwhom the ele#tion propa%anda are released would ensure that these #andidates and politi#al partiesmaintain within the authoriBed e>penses limitation.

he tarpaulin was not paid for by any #andidate or politi#al party.-2? here was no alle%ation that petitioners#oordinated with any of the persons named in the tarpaulin re%ardin% its postin%. /n the other hand,petitioners posted the tarpaulin as part of their advo#a#y a%ainst the R3 8aw.

Respondents also #ite #ational Press Club v. C0MC -2! in ar%uin% that its re%ulatory power under theConstitution, to some e>tent, set a limit on the ri%ht to free spee#h durin% ele#tion period.-27


#ational Press Club involved the prohibition on the sale and donation of spa#e and time for politi#aladvertisements, limitin% politi#al advertisements to C/=989C(desi%nated spa#e and time. his #ase was

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


brou%ht by representatives of mass media and two #andidates for offi#e in the -2 ele#tions. hey ar%uedthat the prohibition on the sale and donation of spa#e and time for politi#al advertisements is tantamount to#ensorship, whi#h ne#essarily infrin%es on the freedom of spee#h of the #andidates.-2$


his #ourt upheld the #onstitutionality of the C/=989C prohibition in #ational Press Club. <o+ever, thiscase does not apply as most o! the petitioners +ere electoral candidates, unli;e petitioners in theinstant case. =oreover, the subje#t matter of #ational Press Club! 4e#tion --&b' of Republi# A#t +o.

!!0!,-2

only refers to a parti#ular 5ind of media su#h as newspapers, radio broad#astin%, ortelevision.-Justi#e 1eli#iano emphasiBed that the provision did not infrin%e upon the ri%ht of reporters orbroad#asters to air their #ommentaries and opinions re%ardin% the #andidates, their @ualifi#ations, andpro%ram for %overnment. Compared to Sanidad wherein the #olumnists lost their ability to %ive their#ommentary on the issues involvin% the plebis#ite, #ational Press Club does not involve the sameinfrin%ement.

6n the #ase at bar, petitioners lost their ability to %ive a #ommentary on the #andidates for the 2- nationalele#tions be#ause of the C/=989C noti#e and letter. 6t was not merely a re%ulation on the #ampai%ns of#andidates vyin% for publi# offi#e. hus, #ational Press Club does not apply to this #ase.

1inally, 4e#tion 7 of Datas Pambansa Dl%. $$-, otherwise 5nown as the /mnibus 9le#tion Code, defines an ;ele#tion #ampai%n< as follows#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

. . . .

&b' he term ;&'&(+on a*a+n< or ;*ar(+an *o'+(+a' a(++(y< refers to an act designed to promotethe election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office whi#h shall in#lude

&-' 1ormin% or%aniBations, asso#iations, #lubs, #ommittees or other %roups of persons for the purpose ofsoli#itin% votes andGor underta5in% any #ampai%n for or a%ainst a #andidateE

&2' 3oldin% politi#al #au#uses, #onferen#es, meetin%s, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for thepurpose of soli#itin% votes andGor underta5in% any #ampai%n or propa%anda for or a%ainst a #andidateE

&' =a5in% spee#hes, announ#ements or #ommentaries, or holdin% interviews for or a%ainst the ele#tion ofany #andidate for publi# offi#eE

&0' Publishin% or distributin% #ampai%n literature or materials desi%ned to support or oppose the ele#tion ofany #andidateE or

&?' "ire#tly or indire#tly soli#itin% votes, pled%es or support for or a%ainst a #andidate.

he fore%oin% enumerated a#ts if performed for the purpose of enhan#in% the #han#es of aspirants fornomination for #andida#y to a publi# offi#e by a politi#al party, a%%roupment, or #oalition of parties shall notbe #onsidered as ele#tion #ampai%n or partisan ele#tion a#tivity.

Public e?pressions or opinions or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming ele#tion or on attributes ofor #riti#isms a%ainst probable #andidates proposed to be nominated in a forth#omin% politi#al party#onvention shall not be construed as part of an election campaign or partisan political activitcontemplated under this Article. &9mphasis supplied'

rue, there is no mention whether ele#tion #ampai%n is limited only to the #andidates and politi#al partiesthemselves. he fo#us of the definition is that the a#t must be ;desi%ned to promote the ele#tion or defeat of

a parti#ular #andidate or #andidates to a publi# offi#e.<

6n this #ase, the tarpaulin #ontains spee#h on a matter of publi# #on#ern, that is, a statement of eitherappre#iation or #riti#ism on votes made in the passin% of the R3 law. hus, petitioners invo5e their ri%ht tofreedom of e>pression. #ralawred

66.Dhe violation of the #onstitutional ri%htto freedom of spee#h and e>pression

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Petitioners #ontend that the assailed noti#e and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violate theirfundamental ri%ht to freedom of e>pression.

/n the other hand, respondents #ontend that the tarpaulin is an ele#tion propa%anda subje#t to theirre%ulation pursuant to their mandate under Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution. hus, the assailednoti#e and letter orderin% its removal for bein% oversiBed are valid and #onstitutional.--


66.D.-

1undamental to the #onsideration of this issue is Arti#le 666, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#tion 0. +o law shall be passed abrid%in% the freedom of spee#h, of e>pression, or of the press, or theri%ht of the people pea#eably to assemble and petition the %overnment for redress of %rievan#es.-2


#o la( . . .

While it is true that the present petition assails not a law but an opinion by the C/=989C 8aw "epartment,this #ourt has applied Arti#le 666, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution even to %overnmental a#ts.

6n Primicias v. %ugoso!- respondent =ayor applied by analo%y 4e#tion --- of the Revised /rdinan#es of-27 of =anila for the publi# meetin% and assembly or%aniBed by petitioner Primi#ias.-0 4e#tion ---re@uires a =ayors permit for the use of streets and publi# pla#es for purposes su#h as athleti# %ames,sports, or #elebration of national holidays.-? What was @uestioned was not a law but the =ayors refusal toissue a permit for the holdin% of petitioners publi# meetin%.-! +evertheless, this #ourt re#o%niBed the#onstitutional ri%ht to freedom of spee#h, to pea#eful assembly and to petition for redress of %rievan#es,albeit not absolute,-7 and the petition for mandamus to #ompel respondent =ayor to issue the permit was%ranted.-$


6n A4S,C4# v. C0MC , what was assailed was not a law but C/=989C 9n Dan# Resolution +o. $(-0-where the C/=989C resolved to approve the issuan#e of a restrainin% order to stop AD4(CD+ from#ondu#tin% e>it surveys.- he ri%ht to freedom of e>pression was similarly upheld in this #ase and,#onse@uently, the assailed resolution was nullified and set aside.-0


. . . shall be passed abridging. . .

All re%ulations will have an impa#t dire#tly or indire#tly on e>pression. he prohibition a%ainst theabrid%ment of spee#h should not mean an absolute prohibition a%ainst re%ulation. he primary andin#idental burden on spee#h must be wei%hed a%ainst a #ompellin% state interest #learly allowed in theConstitution. he test depends on the relevant theory of spee#h impli#it in the 5ind of so#iety framed by ourConstitution.

. . . of e?pression. . .

/ur Constitution has also e>pli#itly in#luded the freedom of e>pression, separate and in addition to thefreedom of spee#h and of the press provided in the K4 Constitution. he word ;e>pression< was added in the-$7 Constitution by Commissioner Dro#5a for havin% a wider s#ope #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

=R. DR/CLA his is a very minor amendment, =r. Presidin% /ffi#er. /n 4e#tion , pa%e 2, line 2, it says ;+o law shall be passed abrid%in% the freedom of spee#h.< 6 would li5e to re#ommend to the Committee the#han%e of the word ;spee#h< to 9:PR9446/+E or if not, add the words A+" 9:PR9446/+ after the word

;spee#h,< be#ause it is more e>pansive, it has a wider s#ope, and it would refer to means of e>pressionother than spee#h.

39 PR946"6+) /116C9R &=r. Den%Bon' What does the Committee sayH

1R. D9R+A4 ;9>pression< is more broad than spee#h. We a##ept it.

=R. DR/CLA han5 you.

39 PR946"6+) /116C9R &=r. Den%Bon' 6s it a##eptedH

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


1R. D9R+A4 Qes.

39 PR946"6+) /116C9R &=r. Den%Bon' 6s there any obje#tionH &Silence' he Chair hears noneE theamendment is approved.

1R. D9R+A4 4o, that provision will now read ;+o law shall be passed abrid%in% the freedom of spee#h,

e>pression or of the press . . . .< -0-

4pee#h may be said to be ine>tri#ably lin5ed to freedom itself as ;Ithe ri%ht to thin5 is the be%innin% offreedom, and spee#h must be prote#ted from the %overnment be#ause spee#h is the be%innin% ofthou%ht.< -02


66.D.2

Communi#ation is an essential out#ome of prote#ted spee#h.-0#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Communi#ation e>ists when ;&-' a spea5er, see5in% to si%nal others, uses #onventional a#tions be#ause heor she reasonably believes that su#h a#tions will be ta5en by the audien#e in the manner intendedE and &2'the audien#e so ta5es the a#tions.< -00 ;I6n #ommuni#ative a#tionI, the hearer may respond to the #laims by. . . either a##eptin% the spee#h a#ts #laims or opposin% them with #riti#ism or re@uests for

justifi#ation.<

-0?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

4pee#h is not limited to vo#al #ommuni#ation. ;ICondu#t is treated as a form of spee#h sometimes referredto as Usymboli# spee#hI,< -0! su#h that ;Uwhen Uspee#h and Unonspee#h elements are #ombined in the same#ourse of #ondu#t, the U#ommuni#ative element of the #ondu#t may be Usuffi#ient to brin% into play theIri%ht to freedom of e>pression.< -07


he ri%ht to freedom of e>pression, thus, applies to the entire #ontinuum of spee#h from utteran#es made to#ondu#t ena#ted, and even to ina#tion itself as a symboli# manner of #ommuni#ation.

6n bralinag v. 'he Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu!-0$ students who were members of thereli%ious se#t Jehovahs Witnesses were to be e>pelled from s#hool for refusin% to salute the fla%, sin% thenational anthem, and re#ite the patrioti# pled%e.-0 6n his #on#urrin% opinion, Justi#e CruB dis#ussed how thesalute is a symboli# manner of #ommuni#ation and a valid form of e>pression.-? 3e adds that freedom ofspee#h in#ludes even the ri%ht to be silent #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1reedom of spee#h in#ludes the ri%ht to be silent. Aptly has it been said that the Dill of Ri%hts that%uarantees to the individual the liberty to utter what is in his mind also %uarantees to him the liberty not toutter what is not in his mind. he salute is a symboli# manner of #ommuni#ation that #onveys its messa%eas #learly as the written or spo5en word. As a valid form of e>pression, it #annot be #ompelled any morethan it #an be prohibited in the fa#e of valid reli%ious obje#tions li5e those raised in this petition. o impose iton the petitioners is to deny them the ri%ht not to spea5 when their reli%ion bids them to be silent. his#oer#ion of #ons#ien#e has no pla#e in the free so#iety.

he demo#rati# system provides for the a##ommodation of diverse ideas, in#ludin% the un#onventional andeven the biBarre or e##entri#. he will of the majority prevails, but it #annot re%iment thou%ht by pres#ribin%the re#itation by rote of its opinions or pros#ribin% the assertion of unorthodo> or unpopular views as in this#ase. he #ons#ientious obje#tions of the petitioners, no less than the impatien#e of those who disa%ree withthem, are prote#ted by the Constitution. he 4tate #annot ma5e the individual spea5 when the soul withinrebels. -?-

9ven before freedom ;of e>pression< was in#luded in Arti#le 666, 4e#tion 0 of the present Constitution, this#ourt has applied its pre#edent version to e>pressions other than verbal utteran#es.

6n the -$? #ase of 3on*ale* v. Chairman +atigba) ,-?2 petitioners obje#ted to the #lassifi#ation of the motionpi#ture ;Lapit sa Patalim< as ;1or Adults /nly.< hey #ontend that the #lassifi#ation ;is without le%al andfa#tual basis and is e>er#ised as impermissible restraint of artisti# e>pression.< -? his #ourt re#o%niBed that ;Imotion pi#tures are important both as a medium for the #ommuni#ation of ideas and the e>pression ofthe artisti# impulse.< -?0 6t adds that ;every writer, a#tor, or produ#er, no matter what medium of e>pressionhe may use, should be freed from the #ensor.< -?? his #ourt found that ;Ithe Doards per#eption of what

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


#onstitutes obs#enity appears to be unduly restri#tive.< -?! 3owever, the petition was dismissed solely on the%round that there were not enou%h votes for a rulin% of %rave abuse of dis#retion in the #lassifi#ation madeby the Doard.-?7


66.D.

Si*e does matter

he form of e>pression is just as important as the information #onveyed that it forms part of the e>pression.he present #ase is in point.

6t is easy to dis#ern why siBe matters.

1irst, it enhan#es effi#ien#y in #ommuni#ation. A lar%er tarpaulin allows lar%er fonts whi#h ma5e it easier toview its messa%es from %reater distan#es. 1urthermore, a lar%er tarpaulin ma5es it easier for passen%ersinside movin% vehi#les to read its #ontent. Compared with the pedestrians, the passen%ers inside movin%vehi#les have lesser time to view the #ontent of a tarpaulin. he lar%er the fonts and ima%es, the %reater theprobability that it will #at#h their attention and, thus, the %reater the possibility that they will understand itsmessa%e.

4e#ond, the siBe of the tarpaulin may unders#ore the importan#e of the messa%e to the reader. 1rom anordinary persons perspe#tive, those who post their messa%es in lar%er fonts #are more about their messa%e

than those who #arry their messa%es in smaller media. he per#eived importan#e %iven by the spea5ers, inthis #ase petitioners, to their #ause is also part of the messa%e. he effe#tivity of #ommuni#ation sometimesrelies on the emphasis put by the spea5ers and on the #redibility of the spea5ers themselves. Certainly,lar%er se%ments of the publi# may tend to be more #onvin#ed of the point made by authoritative fi%ureswhen they ma5e the effort to emphasiBe their messa%es.

hird, lar%er spa#es allow for more messa%es. 8ar%er spa#es, therefore, may translate to more opportunitiesto amplify, e>plain, and ar%ue points whi#h the spea5ers mi%ht want to #ommuni#ate. Rather than simplypla#in% the names and ima%es of politi#al #andidates and an e>pression of support, lar%er spa#es #an allowfor brief but memorable presentations of the #andidates platforms for %overnan#e. 8ar%er spa#es allow formore pre#ise in#eptions of ideas, #atalyBe rea#tions to advo#a#ies, and #ontribute more to a more edu#atedand reasoned ele#torate. A more edu#ated ele#torate will in#rease the possibilities of both %ood %overnan#eand a##ountability in our %overnment.

hese points be#ome more salient when it is the ele#torate, not the #andidates or the politi#al parties, thatspea5s. oo often, the terms of publi# dis#ussion durin% ele#tions are framed and 5ept hosta%e by brief and#at#hy but meanin%less sound bites e>tollin% the #hara#ter of the #andidate. Worse, ele#tions sidelinepoliti#al ar%uments and privile%e the endorsement by #elebrities. Rather than provide obsta#les to theirspee#h, %overnment should in fa#t en#oura%e it. Detween the #andidates and the ele#torate, the latter havethe better in#entive to demand dis#ussion of the more important issues. Detween the #andidates and theele#torate, the former have better in#entives to avoid diffi#ult politi#al standpoints and instead fo#us onappearan#es and empty promises.

8ar%e tarpaulins, therefore, are not analo%ous to time and pla#e.-?$ hey are fundamentally part ofe>pression prote#ted under Arti#le 666, 4e#tion 0 of the Constitution. #ralawred

66.D.0

here are several theories and s#hools of thou%ht that stren%then the need to prote#t the basi# ri%ht to

freedom of e>pression.

1irst, this relates to the ri%ht of the people to parti#ipate in publi# affairs, in#ludin% the ri%ht to #riti#iBe%overnment a#tions.

Proponents of the politi#al theory on ;deliberative demo#ra#y< submit that ;substantial, open, Iand ethi#aldialo%ue is a #riti#al, and indeed definin%, feature of a %ood polity.< -? his theory may be #onsidered broad,but it definitely ;in#ludes Ia #olle#tive de#ision ma5in% with the parti#ipation of all who will be affe#ted bythe de#ision.< -! 6t an#hors on the prin#iple that the #ornerstone of every demo#ra#y is that soverei%ntyresides in the people.-!- o ensure order in runnin% the states affairs, soverei%n powers were dele%ated andindividuals would be ele#ted or nominated in 5ey %overnment positions to represent the people. /n this

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


note, the theory on deliberative demo#ra#y may evolve to the ri%ht of the people to ma5e %overnmenta##ountable. +e#essarily, this in#ludes the ri%ht of the people to #riti#iBe a#ts made pursuant to%overnmental fun#tions.

4pee#h that promotes dialo%ue on publi# affairs, or airs out %rievan#es and politi#al dis#ontent, should thusbe prote#ted and en#oura%ed.

Dorrowin% the words of Justi#e Drandeis, ;it is haBardous to dis#oura%e thou%ht, hope and ima%inationE thatfear breeds repressionE that repression breeds hateE that hate mena#es stable %overnmentE that the path ofsafety lies in the opportunity to dis#uss freely supposed %rievan#es and proposed remedies.< -!2


6n this jurisdi#tion, this #ourt held that ;Ithe interest of so#iety and the maintenan#e of %ood %overnmentdemand a full dis#ussion of publi# affairs.< -! his #ourt has, thus, adopted the prin#iple that ;debate onpubli# issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open . . . Iin#ludin% even unpleasantly sharp atta#5son %overnment and publi# offi#ials.< -!0


4e#ond, free spee#h should be en#oura%ed under the #on#ept of a mar5et pla#e of ideas. his theory wasarti#ulated by Justi#e 3olmes in that ;the ultimate %ood desired is better rea#hed by Ithe free trade inideas< -!?


When men have realiBed that time has upset many fi%htin% faiths, they may #ome to believe even morethan they believe the very foundations of their own #ondu#t that the ultimate %ood desired is better rea#hed

by free trade in ideas ( that the best test of truth is the power of the thou%ht to %et itself a##epted in the#ompetition of the mar5et, and that truth is the only %round upon whi#h their wishes safely #an be #arriedout.-!!

he way it wor5s, the e>posure to the ideas of others allows one to ;#onsider, test, and develop their own#on#lusions.< -!7 A free, open, and dynami# mar5et pla#e of ideas is #onstantly shapin% new ones. hispromotes both stability and #han%e where re#urrin% points may #rystalliBe and wea5 ones may develop. /f#ourse, free spee#h is more than the ri%ht to approve e>istin% politi#al beliefs and e#onomi# arran%ementsas it in#ludes, ;Ito paraphrase Justi#e 3olmes, Ithe freedom for the thou%ht that we hate, no less than forthe thou%ht that a%rees with us.< -!$ 6n fa#t, free spee#h may ;best serve its hi%h purpose when it indu#es a#ondition of unrest, #reates dissatisfa#tion with #onditions as they are, or even stirs people to an%er.< -! 6t isin this #onte>t that we should %uard a%ainst any #urtailment of the peoples ri%ht to parti#ipate in the freetrade of ideas.

hird, free spee#h involves self(e>pression that enhan#es human di%nity. his ri%ht is ;a means of assurin%individual self(fulfillment,< -7 amon% others. 6n Philippine 4looming Mills mploees 0rgani*ation v. Philippine4looming Mills Co.! "nc!-7- this #ourt dis#ussed as follows #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he ri%hts of free e>pression, free assembly and petition, are not only #ivil ri%hts but also politi#alri%hts essential to mans enHoment of his life! to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment . hruthese freedoms the #itiBens #an parti#ipate not merely in the periodi# establishment of the %overnmentthrou%h their suffra%e but also in the administration of publi# affairs as well as in the dis#ipline of abusivepubli# offi#ers. he #itiBen is a##orded these ri%hts so that he #an appeal to the appropriate %overnmentaloffi#ers or a%en#ies for redress and prote#tion as well as for the imposition of the lawful san#tions on errin%publi# offi#ers and employees.-72 &9mphasis supplied'

1ourth, e>pression is a mar5er for %roup identity. 1or one, ;Ivoluntary asso#iations perform Ian importantdemo#rati# role Iin providin% forums for the development of #ivil s5ills, for deliberation, and for the

formation of identity and #ommunity spiritI, Iand are lar%ely immune from Iany %overnmentalinterferen#e.< -7 hey also ;provide a buffer between individuals and the state ( a free spa#e for thedevelopment of individual personality, distin#t %roup identity, and dissident ideas ( and a potential sour#e ofopposition to the state.< -70 1ree spee#h must be prote#ted as the vehi#le to find those who have similar andshared values and ideals, to join to%ether and forward #ommon %oals.

1ifth, the Dill of Ri%hts, free spee#h in#luded, is supposed to ;prote#t individuals and minorities a%ainstmajoritarian abuses perpetrated throu%h Ithe framewor5 Iof demo#rati# %overnan#e.< -7? 1ederalist framersled by James =adison were #on#erned about two potentially vulnerable %roups ;the #itiBenry at lar%e (majorities ( who mi%ht be tyranniBed or plundered by despoti# federal offi#ials< -7! and the minorities whomay be oppressed by ;dominant fa#tions of the ele#torate Ithat #apture Ithe %overnment for their own

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


selfish endsI.< -77 A##ordin% to =adison, ;Iit is of %reat importan#e in a republi# not only to %uard theso#iety a%ainst the oppression of its rulers, but to %uard one part of the so#iety a%ainst the injusti#e of theother part.< -7$ We should strive to ensure that free spee#h is prote#ted espe#ially in li%ht of any potentialoppression a%ainst those who find themselves in the frin%es on publi# issues.

8astly, free spee#h must be prote#ted under the safety valve theory.-7 his provides that ;nonviolentmanifestations of dissent redu#e the li5elihood of violen#eI.< -$ ;IA dam about to burst . . . resultin% in the

Uban5in% up of a mena#in% flood of sullen an%er behind the walls of restri#tion< -$-

has been used to des#ribethe effe#t of repressin% nonviolent outlets.-$2 6n order to avoid this situation and prevent people fromresortin% to violen#e, there is a need for pea#eful methods in ma5in% passionate dissent. his in#ludes ;freee>pression and politi#al parti#ipation< -$ in that they #an ;vote for #andidates who share their views, petitiontheir le%islatures to Ima5e or #han%e laws, . . . distribute literature alertin% other #itiBens of their#on#ernsI,< -$0 and #ondu#t pea#eful rallies and other similar a#ts.-$? 1ree spee#h must, thus, be prote#tedas a pea#eful means of a#hievin% ones %oal, #onsiderin% the possibility that repression of nonviolent dissentmay spill over to violent means just to drive a point. #ralawred

66.D.?

9very #itiBens e>pression with politi#al #onse@uen#es enjoys a hi%h de%ree of prote#tion.

Respondents ar%ue that the tarpaulin is ele#tion propa%anda, bein% petitioners way of endorsin% #andidateswho voted a%ainst the R3 8aw and reje#tin% those who voted for it.-$! As su#h, it is subje#t to re%ulation by

C/=989C under its #onstitutional mandate.-$7 9le#tion propa%anda is defined under 4e#tion -&0' ofC/=989C Resolution +o. !-? as follows#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ -. "efinitions . . .

. . . .

0. he term ;politi#al advertisement< or ;ele#tion propa%anda< refers to any matter broad#asted, published,printed, displayed or e>hibited, in any medium, whi#h #ontain the name, ima%e, lo%o, brand, insi%nia, #olormotif, initials, and other symbol or %raphi# representation that is #apable of bein% asso#iated with a#andidate or party, and is intended to draw the attention of the publi# or a se%ment thereof to promote oroppose, dire#tly or indire#tly, the ele#tion of the said #andidate or #andidates to a publi# offi#e. 6n broad#astmedia, politi#al advertisements may ta5e the form of spots, appearan#es on * shows and radio pro%rams,live or taped announ#ements, teasers, and other forms of advertisin% messa%es or announ#ements used by#ommer#ial advertisers.

Politi#al advertisin% in#ludes matters, not fallin% within the s#ope of personal opinion, that appear on any6nternet website, in#ludin%, but not limited to, so#ial networ5s, blo%%in% sites, and mi#ro(blo%%in% sites, inreturn for #onsideration, or otherwise #apable of pe#uniary estimation.

/n the other hand, petitioners invo5e their ;#onstitutional ri%ht to #ommuni#ate their opinions, views andbeliefs about issues and #andidates.< -$$ hey ar%ue that the tarpaulin was their statement of approval andappre#iation of the named publi# offi#ials a#t of votin% a%ainst the R3 8aw, and their #riti#ism toward thosewho voted in its favor.-$ 6t was ;part of their advo#a#y #ampai%n a%ainst the R3 8aw,< - whi#h was not paidfor by any #andidate or politi#al party.-- hus, ;the @uestioned orders whi#h . . . effe#tively restrainIed and#urtailIed Itheir freedom of e>pression should be de#lared un#onstitutional and void.< -2


his #ourt has held free spee#h and other intelle#tual freedoms as ;hi%hly ran5ed in our s#heme of#onstitutional values.< - hese ri%hts enjoy pre#eden#e and prima#y.-0 6n Philippine 4looming Mills, this

#ourt dis#ussed the preferred position o##upied by freedom of e>pression#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Property and property ri%hts #an be lost thru pres#riptionE but human ri%hts are impres#riptible. 6f humanri%hts are e>tin%uished by the passa%e of time, then the Dill of Ri%hts is a useless attempt to limit the powerof %overnment and #eases to be an effi#a#ious shield a%ainst the tyranny of offi#ials, of majorities, of theinfluential and powerful, and of oli%ar#hs ( politi#al, e#onomi# or otherwise.

6n the hierar#hy of #ivil liberties, the ri%hts of free e>pression and of assembly o##upy a preferred position asthey are essential to the preservation and vitality of our #ivil and politi#al institutionsE and su#h priority ;%ives these liberties the san#tity and the san#tion not permittin% dubious intrusions.< -? &Citations omitted'

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


his primordial ri%ht #alls for utmost respe#t, more so ;when what may be #urtailed is the dissemination ofinformation to ma5e more meanin%ful the e@ually vital ri%ht of suffra%e.< -! A similar idea appeared in our jurispruden#e as early as -!, whi#h was Justi#e Darredos #on#urrin% and dissentin% opinion in 3on*alesv. C0MC -7


6 li5e to reiterate over and over, for it seems this is the fundamental point others miss, that %enuine

demo#ra#y thrives only where the power and ri%ht of the people to ele#t the men to whom they wouldentrust the privile%e to run the affairs of the state e>ist. 6n the lan%ua%e of the de#laration of prin#iples ofour Constitution, ;he Philippines is a republi#an state. 4overei%nty resides in the people and all %overnmentauthority emanates from them< &4e#tion -, Arti#le 66'. ranslatin% this de#laration into a#tuality, thePhilippines is a republi# be#ause and solely be#ause the people in it #an be %overned only by offi#ials whomthey themselves have pla#ed in offi#e by their votes. And in it is on this #ornerstone that 6 hold it to be self(evident that (hen the freedoms of speech! press and peaceful assembl and redress of grievances are beinge?ercised in relation to suffrage or as a means to enHo the inalienable right of the -ualified citi*en to vote!the are absolute and timeless. 6f our demo#ra#y and republi#anism are to be worthwhile, the #ondu#t ofpubli# affairs by our offi#ials must be allowed to suffer in#essant and unabatin% s#rutiny, favorable orunfavorable, everyday and at all times. 9very holder of power in our %overnment must be ready to under%oe>posure any moment of the day or ni%ht, from January to "e#ember every year, as it is only in this waythat he #an ri%htfully %ain the #onfiden#e of the people. 6 have no patien#e for those who would re%ardpubli# disse#tion of the establishment as an attribute to be indul%ed by the people only at #ertain periods oftime. " consider the freedoms of speech! press and peaceful assembl and redress of grievances! (hen

e?ercised in the name of suffrage! as the ver means b (hich the right itself to vote can onl be properlenHoed . 6t stands to reason therefore, that suffra%e itself would be ne>t to useless if these liberties #annotbe untrammelled Isi# whether as to de%ree or time.-$ &9mphasis supplied'

+ot all spee#h are treated the same. 6n Chave* v. 3on*ales! this #ourt dis#ussed that some types of spee#hmay be subje#t to re%ulation #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4ome types of spee#h may be subje#ted to some re%ulation by the 4tate under its pervasive poli#e power, inorder that it may not be injurious to the e@ual ri%ht of others or those of the #ommunity or so#iety. hedifferen#e in treatment is e>pe#ted be#ause the relevant interests of one type of spee#h, e.%., politi#alspee#h, may vary from those of another, e.%., obs#ene spee#h. "istin#tions have therefore been made in thetreatment, analysis, and evaluation of the permissible s#ope of restri#tions on various #ate%ories of spee#h.We have ruled, for e>ample, that in our jurisdi#tion slander or libel, lewd and obs#ene spee#h, as well as ;fi%htin% words< are not entitled to #onstitutional prote#tion and may be penaliBed.-&Citations omitted'

We distin%uish between politi#al and #ommer#ial spee#h. Politi#al spee#h refers to spee#h ;both intended andre#eived as a #ontribution to publi# deliberation about some issue,< 2 ;fosterIin% informed and #ivi#(mindeddeliberation.< 2- /n the other hand, #ommer#ial spee#h has been defined as spee#h that does ;no more thanpropose a #ommer#ial transa#tion.< 22


he e>pression resultin% from the #ontent of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely politi#al spee#h.

6n Justi#e Drions dissentin% opinion, he dis#ussed that ;Ithe #ontent of the tarpaulin, as well as the timin%of its postin%, ma5es it subje#t of the re%ulations in RA ! and Comele# Resolution +o. !-?.< 2 3e addsthat ;Iwhile indeed the R3 issue, by itself, is not an ele#toral matter, the slant that the petitioners %ave theissue #onverted the non(ele#tion issue into a live ele#tion one hen#e, eam Duhay and eam Patay and theplea to support one and oppose the other.< 20


While the tarpaulin may influen#e the su##ess or failure of the named #andidates and politi#al parties, thisdoes not ne#essarily mean it is ele#tion propa%anda. he tarpaulin was not paid for or posted ;in return for#onsideration< by any #andidate, politi#al party, or party(list %roup.

he se#ond para%raph of 4e#tion -&0' of C/=989C Resolution +o. !-?, or the rules and re%ulationsimplementin% Republi# A#t +o. ! as an aid to interpret the law insofar as the fa#ts of this #ase re@uires,states#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

0. he term ;politi#al advertisement< or ;ele#tion propa%anda< refers to any matterbroad#asted, published, printed, displayed or e>hibited, in any medium, whi#h #ontain the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


name, ima%e, lo%o, brand, insi%nia, #olor motif, initials, and other symbol or %raphi#representation that is #apable of bein% asso#iated with a #andidate or party, and is intendedto draw the attention of the publi# or a se%ment thereof to promote or oppose, dire#tly orindire#tly, the ele#tion of the said #andidate or #andidates to a publi# offi#e. 6n broad#astmedia, politi#al advertisements may ta5e the form of spots, appearan#es on * shows andradio pro%rams, live or taped announ#ements, teasers, and other forms of advertisin%messa%es or announ#ements used by #ommer#ial advertisers.

"olitical advertisin* includes matters, not !allin* +ithin the scope o! personalopinion, that appear on any nternet +esite, includin*, ut not limited to, socialnet+or;s, lo**in* sites, and microlo**in* sites, in return !or consideration, orother+ise capale o! pecuniary estimation.&9mphasis supplied'

6t is #lear that this para%raph su%%ests that personal opinions are not in#luded, while sponsored messa%esare #overed.

hus, the last para%raph of 4e#tion -&-' of C/=989C Resolution +o. !-? states #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C6/+ -. "efinitions ( As used in this Resolution

-. he term ;ele#tion #ampai%n< or ;partisan politi#al a#tivity< refers to an a#t desi%ned topromote the ele#tion or defeat of a parti#ular #andidate or #andidates to a publi# offi#e, andshall in#lude any of the followin%

. . . .

Personal opinions, views, and preferen#es for #andidates, #ontained in blo%s shall not be#onsidered a#ts of ele#tion #ampai%nin% or partisan politi#al a#tivity unless e>pressed by%overnment offi#ials in the 9>e#utive "epartment, the 8e%islative "epartment, theJudi#iary, the Constitutional Commissions, and members of the Civil 4ervi#e.

6n any event, this #ase does not refer to spee#h in #yberspa#e, and its effe#ts and parameters should bedeemed narrowly tailored only in relation to the fa#ts and issues in this #ase. 6t also appears that su#hwordin% in C/=989C Resolution +o. !-? does not similarly appear in Republi# A#t +o. !, the law itimplements.

We should interpret in this manner be#ause of the value of politi#al spee#h.

As early as --$, in >nited States v. 4ustos,2? this #ourt re#o%niBed the need for full dis#ussion of publi#affairs. We a#5nowled%ed that free spee#h in#ludes the ri%ht to #riti#iBe the #ondu#t of publi# men #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he interest of so#iety and the maintenan#e of %ood %overnment demand a full dis#ussion of publi# affairs.Complete liberty to #omment on the #ondu#t of publi# men is a s#alpel in the #ase of free spee#h. he sharpin#ision of its probe relieves the abs#esses of offi#ialdom. =en in publi# life may suffer under a hostile andan unjust a##usationE the wound #an be assua%ed with the balm of a #lear #ons#ien#e. A publi# offi#er mustnot be too thin(s5inned with referen#e to #omment upon his offi#ial a#ts. /nly thus #an the intelli%en#e anddi%nity of the individual be e>alted.2!

4ubse@uent jurispruden#e developed the ri%ht to petition the %overnment for redress of %rievan#es, allowin%for #riti#ism, save for some e>#eptions.27 6n the -?- #ase of spuelas v. People!2$ this #ourt noted every#itiBens privile%e to #riti#iBe his or her %overnment, provided it is ;spe#ifi# and therefore #onstru#tive,reasoned or tempered, and not a #ontemptuous #ondemnation of the entire %overnment set(up.< 2


he -27 #ase of People v. 'itular 2- involved an alle%ed violation of the 9le#tion 8aw provision ;penaliBIin%the anonymous #riti#ism of a #andidate by means of posters or #ir#ulars.< 2-- his #ourt e>plained that it isthe posters anonymous #hara#ter that is bein% penaliBed.2-2 he ponente adds that he would ;disli5e verymu#h to see this de#ision made the vehi#le for the suppression of publi# opinion.< 2-


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


6n -$, Rees v. 4agatsing2-0 dis#ussed the importan#e of allowin% individuals to vent their views.A##ordin% to this #ourt, ;Iits value may lie in the fa#t that there may be somethin% worth hearin% from thedissenter Iand Ithat is to ensure a true ferment of ideas.< 2-?


Allowin% #itiBens to air %rievan#es and spea5 #onstru#tive #riti#isms a%ainst their %overnment #ontributes toevery so#ietys %oal for development. 6t puts forward matters that may be #han%ed for the better and ideasthat may be deliberated on to attain that purpose. +e#essarily, it also ma5es the %overnment a##ountable

for a#ts that violate #onstitutionally prote#ted ri%hts.

6n -$, 0smeNa v. C0MC found 4e#tion --&b' of Republi# A#t +o. !!0!, whi#h prohibits mass mediafrom sellin% print spa#e and air time for #ampai%n e>#ept to the C/=989C, to be a demo#ra#y(enhan#in%measure.2-! his #ourt mentioned how ;dis#ussion of publi# issues and debate on the @ualifi#ations of#andidates in an ele#tion are essential to the proper fun#tionin% of the %overnment established by ourConstitution.< 2-7


As pointed out by petitioners, ;spee#h serves one of its %reatest publi# purposes in the #onte>t of ele#tionswhen the free e>er#ise thereof informs the people what the issues are, and who are supportin% whatissues.< 2-$ At the heart of demo#ra#y is every advo#ates ri%ht to ma5e 5nown what the people need to5now,2- while the meanin%ful e>er#ise of ones ri%ht of suffra%e in#ludes the ri%ht of every voter to 5nowwhat they need to 5now in order to ma5e their #hoi#e.

hus, in Adiong v. C0MC ,22 this #ourt dis#ussed the importan#e of debate on publi# issues, and the

freedom of e>pression espe#ially in relation to information that ensures the meanin%ful e>er#ise of the ri%htof suffra%e#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We have adopted the prin#iple that debate on publi# issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide openand that it may well in#lude vehement, #austi# and sometimes unpleasantly sharp atta#5s on %overnmentand publi# offi#ials. oo many restri#tions will deny to people the robust, uninhibited, and wide open debate,the %eneratin% of interest essential if our ele#tions will truly be free, #lean and honest.

We have also ruled that the preferred freedom of e?pression calls all the more for the utmost respect (hen(hat ma be curtailed is the dissemination of information to ma)e more meaningful the e-uall vital right of suffrage.22- &9mphasis supplied, #itations omitted'

4pee#h with politi#al #onse@uen#es is at the #ore of the freedom of e>pression and must be prote#ted by this#ourt.

Justi#e Drion pointed out that freedom of e>pression ;is not the %od of ri%hts to whi#h all other ri%hts andeven %overnment prote#tion of state interest must bow.< 222


he ri%ht to freedom of e>pression is indeed not absolute. 9ven some forms of prote#ted spee#h are stillsubje#t to some restri#tions. he de%ree of restri#tion may depend on whether the re%ulation is #ontent(based or #ontent(neutral.22 Content(based re%ulations #an either be based on the viewpoint of the spea5eror the subje#t of the e>pression.#ralawred

66.D.!

Content,based regulation

C/=989C #ontends that the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a #ontent(neutral re%ulation. he order wasmade simply be#ause petitioners failed to #omply with the ma>imum siBe limitation for lawful ele#tion

propa%anda.220#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

/n the other hand, petitioners ar%ue that the present siBe re%ulation is #ontent(based as it applies only topoliti#al spee#h and not to other forms of spee#h su#h as #ommer#ial spee#h.22? ;IAssumin% arguendo thatthe siBe restri#tion sou%ht to be applied . . . is a mere time, pla#e, and manner re%ulation, its stillun#onstitutional for la#5 of a #lear and reasonable ne>us with a #onstitutionally san#tioned obje#tive.< 22!


he re%ulation may reasonably be #onsidered as either #ontent(neutral or #ontent(based.227 Re%ardless, thedisposition of this #ase will be the same. )enerally, #ompared with other forms of spee#h, the proposedspee#h is #ontent(based.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


As pointed out by petitioners, the interpretation of C/=989C #ontained in the @uestioned order applies onlyto posters and tarpaulins that may affe#t the ele#tions be#ause they deliver opinions that shape both their#hoi#es. 6t does not #over, for instan#e, #ommer#ial spee#h.

Worse, C/=989C does not point to a definite view of what 5ind of e>pression of non(#andidates will beadjud%ed as ;ele#tion paraphernalia.< here are no e>istin% bri%ht lines to #ate%oriBe spee#h as ele#tion(

related and those that are not. his is espe#ially true when #itiBens will want to use their resour#es to beable to raise publi# issues that should be ta#5led by the #andidates as what has happened in this #ase.C/=989Cs dis#retion to limit spee#h in this #ase is fundamentally unbridled.

4iBe limitations durin% ele#tions hit at a #ore part of e>pression. he #ontent of the tarpaulin is not easilydivor#ed from the siBe of its medium.

Content(based re%ulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity, and this #ourt has used the #lear andpresent dan%er rule as measure.22$ hus, in Chave* v. 3on*ales#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A #ontent(based re%ulation, however, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured a%ainst the#lear and present dan%er rule. he latter will pass #onstitutional muster only if justified by a #ompellin%reason, and the restri#tions imposed are neither overbroad nor va%ue.22 &Citations omitted'

Knder this rule, ;the evil #onse@uen#es sou%ht to be prevented must be substantive, Ue>tremely serious andthe de%ree of imminen#e e>tremely hi%h.< 2 ;/nly when the #hallen%ed a#t has over#ome the #lear andpresent dan%er rule will it pass #onstitutional muster, with the %overnment havin% the burden of over#omin%the presumed un#onstitutionality.< 2-


9ven with the #lear and present dan%er test, respondents failed to justify the re%ulation. here is no#ompellin% and substantial state interest endan%ered by the postin% of the tarpaulin as to justify #urtailmentof the ri%ht of freedom of e>pression. here is no reason for the state to minimiBe the ri%ht of non(#andidatepetitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. he siBe of the tarpaulin does not affe#t anyoneelses #onstitutional ri%hts.

Content(based restraint or #ensorship refers to restri#tions ;based on the subje#t matter of the utteran#e orspee#h.< 22 6n #ontrast, #ontent(neutral re%ulation in#ludes #ontrols merely on the in#idents of the spee#hsu#h as time, pla#e, or manner of the spee#h.2


his #ourt has attempted to define ;#ontent(neutral< restraints startin% with the -0$ #ase of Primicias v.%ugoso.20 he ordinan#e in this #ase was #onstrued to %rant the =ayor dis#retion only to determine thepubli# pla#es that may be used for the pro#ession or meetin%, but not the power to refuse the issuan#e of apermit for su#h pro#ession or meetin%.2? his #ourt e>plained that free spee#h and pea#eful assembly are ;not absolute for it may be so re%ulated that it shall not be injurious to the e@ual enjoyment of othershavin% e@ual ri%hts, nor injurious to the ri%hts of the #ommunity or so#iety.< 2!


he earlier #ase of Calalang v. &illiams27 involved the +ational raffi# Commission resolution that prohibitedthe passin% of animal(drawn vehi#les alon% #ertain roads at spe#ifi# hours.2$ his #ourt similarly dis#ussedpoli#e power in that the assailed rules #arry out the le%islative poli#y that ;aims to promote safe transit uponand avoid obstru#tions on national roads, in the interest and #onvenien#e of the publi#.< 2


As early as -7, >nited States v. Apurado20 re#o%niBed that ;more or less disorder will mar5 the publi#assembly of the people to protest a%ainst %rievan#es whether real or ima%inary, be#ause on su#h o##asionsfeelin% is always wrou%ht to a hi%h pit#h of e>#itement. . . .< 20- 6t is with this ba#5drop that the state is

justified in imposin% restri#tions on in#idental matters as time, pla#e, and manner of the spee#h.

6n the landmar5 #ase of Rees v. 4agatsing! this #ourt summariBed the steps that permit appli#ants mustfollow whi#h in#lude informin% the li#ensin% authority ahead of time as re%ards the date, publi# pla#e, andtime of the assembly.202 his would afford the publi# offi#ial time to inform appli#ants if there would be validobje#tions, provided that the #lear and present dan%er test is the standard used for his de#ision and theappli#ants are %iven the opportunity to be heard.20 his rulin% was pra#ti#ally #odified in Datas Pambansa+o. $$, otherwise 5nown as the Publi# Assembly A#t of -$?.

4ubse@uent jurispruden#e have upheld Datas Pambansa +o. $$ as a valid #ontent(neutral re%ulation. 6n the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


2! #ase of 4aan v. rmita,200 this #ourt dis#ussed how Datas Pambansa +o. $$ does not prohibitassemblies but simply re%ulates their time, pla#e, and manner.20? 6n 2-, this #ourt found in "ntegrated 4ar of the Philippines v. Atien*a20! that respondent =ayor AtienBa #ommitted %rave abuse of dis#retion when hemodified the rally permit by #han%in% the venue from =endiola Drid%e to PlaBa =iranda without firstaffordin% petitioners the opportunity to be heard.207


We reiterate that the re%ulation involved at bar is #ontent(based. he tarpaulin #ontent is not easily divor#ed

from the siBe of its medium.#ralawred

66.D.7

Justi#e Carpio and Justi#e Perlas(Dernabe su%%est that the provisions imposin% a siBe limit for tarpaulins are#ontent(neutral re%ulations as these ;restri#t the manner by whi#h spee#h is relayed but not thecontent ofwhat is #onveyed.< 20$


"f (e appl the test for content,neutral regulation! the -uestioned acts of C0MC (ill not pass the threere-uirements for evaluating such restraints on freedom of speech.20 ;When the spee#h restraints ta5e theform of a #ontent(neutral re%ulation, only a substantial %overnmental interest is re@uired for itsvalidity,< 2? and it is subje#t only to the intermediate approa#h.2?-


his intermediate approa#h is based on the test that we have pres#ribed in several #ases.2?2 A #ontent(neutral %overnment re%ulation is suffi#iently justified #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I- if it is within the #onstitutional power of the )overnmentE I2 if it furthers an important or substantial%overnmental interestE if the %overnmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free e>pressionEand 0 if the in#ident restri#tion on alle%ed Ifreedom of spee#h V e>pression is no %reater than is essential tothe furtheran#e of that interest.2?

/n the first re@uisite, it is not within the #onstitutional powers of the C/=989C to re%ulate the tarpaulin. Asdis#ussed earlier, this is prote#ted spee#h by petitioners who are non(#andidates.

/n the se#ond re@uirement, not only must the %overnmental interest be important or substantial, it mustalso be #ompellin% as to justify the restri#tions made.

Compellin% %overnmental interest would in#lude #onstitutionally de#lared prin#iples. We have held, fore>ample, that ;the welfare of #hildren and the 4tates mandate to prote#t and #are for them, as parens

patriae!2?0 #onstitute a substantial and #ompellin% %overnment interest in re%ulatin% . . . utteran#es in *broad#ast.< 2??


Respondent invo5es its #onstitutional mandate to ensure e@ual opportunity for publi# information #ampai%nsamon% #andidates in #onne#tion with the holdin% of a free, orderly, honest, pea#eful, and #redibleele#tion.2?!


Justi#e Drion in his dissentin% opinion dis#ussed that ;IsiBe limits to posters are ne#essary to ensuree@uality of publi# information #ampai%ns amon% #andidates, as allowin% posters with different siBes %ives#andidates and their supporters the in#entive to post lar%er postersI, Iand Ithis pla#es #andidates withmore money andGor with deep(po#5et supporters at an undue advanta%e a%ainst #andidates with morehumble finan#ial #apabilities.< 2?7


1irst, Adiong v. C0MC has held that this interest is ;not as important as the ri%ht of Ia private #itiBen tofreely e>press his #hoi#e and e>er#ise his ri%ht of free spee#h.< 2?$ 6n any #ase, fa#ed with both ri%hts to

freedom of spee#h and e@uality, a prudent #ourse would be to ;try to resolve the tension in a way thatprote#ts the ri%ht of parti#ipation.< 2?


4e#ond, the pertinent ele#tion laws related to private property only re@uire that the private property owners#onsent be obtained when postin% ele#tion propa%anda in the property.2! his is #onsistent with thefundamental ri%ht a%ainst deprivation of property without due pro#ess of law.2!- he present fa#ts do notinvolve su#h postin% of ele#tion propa%anda absent #onsent from the property owner. hus, this re%ulationdoes not apply in this #ase.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Respondents li5ewise #ite the Constitution2!2 on their authority to re#ommend effe#tive measures tominimiBe ele#tion spendin%. 4pe#ifi#ally, Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 2&7' provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#. 2. he Commission on 9le#tions shall e>er#ise the followin% powers and fun#tions

. . . .

&7' Re#ommend to the Con%ress effe#tive measures to minimiBe ele#tion spendin%, in#ludin% limitation ofpla#es where propa%anda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penaliBe all forms of election frauds!offenses! malpractices! and nuisance candidates.&9mphasis supplied'

his does not @ualify as a #ompellin% and substantial %overnment interest to justify re%ulation of thepreferred ri%ht to freedom of e>pression.

he assailed issuan#es for the removal of the tarpaulin are based on the two feet &2' by three feet &' siBelimitation under 4e#tion !&#' of C/=989C Resolution +o. !-?. his resolution implements the 1air 9le#tionA#t that provides for the same siBe limitation.2!


his #ourt held in Adiong v. C0MC that ;I#ompared to the paramount interest of the 4tate in%uaranteein% freedom of e>pression, any finan#ial #onsiderations behind the re%ulation are of mar%inalsi%nifi#an#e.< 2!0 6n fa#t, spee#h with politi#al #onse@uen#es, as in this #ase, should be en#oura%ed and not

#urtailed. As petitioners pointed out, the siBe limitation will not serve the obje#tive of minimiBin% ele#tionspendin% #onsiderin% there is no limit on the number of tarpaulins that may be posted.2!?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

he third re@uisite is li5ewise la#5in%. We loo5 not only at the le%islative intent or motive in imposin% therestri#tion, but more so at the effe#ts of su#h restri#tion, if implemented. he restri#tion must not benarrowly tailored to a#hieve the purpose. 6t must be demonstrable. 6t must allow alternative avenues for thea#tor to ma5e spee#h.

6n this #ase, the siBe re%ulation is not unrelated to the suppression of spee#h. 8imitin% the ma>imum siBe ofthe tarpaulin would render ineffe#tive petitioners messa%e and violate their ri%ht to e>er#ise freedom ofe>pression.

he C/=989Cs a#t of re@uirin% the removal of the tarpaulin has the effe#t of dissuadin% e>pressions withpoliti#al #onse@uen#es. hese should be en#oura%ed, more so when e>er#ised to ma5e more meanin%ful thee@ually important ri%ht to suffra%e.

he restri#tion in the present #ase does not pass even the lower test of intermediate s#rutiny for #ontent(neutral re%ulations.

he a#tion of the C/=989C in this #ase is a stron% deterrent to further spee#h by the ele#torate. )iven thestature of petitioners and their messa%e, there are indi#ators that this will #ause a ;#hillin% effe#t< on robustdis#ussion durin% ele#tions.

he form of e>pression is just as important as the messa%e itself. 6n the words of =arshall =#8uhan, ;themedium is the messa%e.< 2!! =#8uhans #ollea%ue and mentor 3arold 6nnis has earlier asserted that ;thematerials on whi#h words were written down have often #ounted for more than the words themselves.< 2!7


6661reedom of e>pression and e@uality

666.Ahe possibility of abuse

/f #ourse, #andidates and politi#al parties do soli#it the help of private individuals for the endorsement oftheir ele#toral #ampai%ns.

/n the one e>treme, this #an ta5e illi#it forms su#h as when endorsement materials in the form oftarpaulins, posters, or media advertisements are made ostensibly by ;friends< but in reality are really paidfor by the #andidate or politi#al party. his s5irts the #onstitutional value that provides for e@ual

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


opportunities for all #andidates.

$o(ever! as agreed b the parties during the oral arguments in this case! this is not the situation thatconfronts us. "n such cases! it (ill simpl be a matter for investigation and proof of fraud on the part of theC0MC.

he %uarantee of freedom of e>pression to individuals without any relationship to any politi#al #andidate

should not be held hosta%e by the possibility of abuse by those see5in% to be ele#ted. 6t is true that there#an be underhanded, #overt, or illi#it dealin%s so as to hide the #andidates real levels of e>penditures.3owever, labellin% all e>pressions of private parties that tend to have an effe#t on the debate in the ele#tionsas ele#tion paraphernalia would be too broad a remedy that #an stifle %enuine spee#h li5e in this #ase.6nstead, to address this evil, better and more effe#tive enfor#ement will be the least restri#tive means to thefundamental freedom.

/n the other e>treme, moved by the #redentials and the messa%e of a #andidate, others will spend theirown resour#es in order to lend support for the #ampai%ns. his may be without a%reement between thespea5er and the #andidate or his or her politi#al party. "n lieu of donating funds to the campaign! the (illinstead use their resources directl in a (a that the candidate or political part (ould have done so. 'hisma effectivel s)irt the constitutional and statutor limits of campaign spending.

A%ain, this is not the situation in this #ase.

he messa%e of petitioners in this #ase will #ertainly not be what #andidates and politi#al parties will #arry intheir ele#tion posters or media ads. 'he message of petitioner! ta)en as a (hole! is an advocac of a socialissue that it deepl believes. 'hrough rhetorical devices! it communicates the desire of Diocese that the positions of those (ho run for a political position on this social issue be determinative of ho( the public (illvote. t primarily advocates a stand on a social issue= only secondarily > even almost incidentally > +ill cause the election or nonelection o! a candidate.

he twin tarpaulins #onsist of satire of politi#al parties. 4atire is a ;literary form that employs su#h devi#esas sar#asm, irony and ridi#ule to deride prevailin% vi#es or follies,< 2!$ and this may tar%et any individual or%roup in so#iety, private and %overnment ali5e. 6t see5s to effe#tively #ommuni#ate a %reater purpose, oftenused for ;politi#al and so#ial #riti#ism< 2! ;be#ause it tears down fa#ades, deflates stuffed shirts, andunmas5s hypo#risy. . . . +othin% is more thorou%hly demo#rati# than to have the hi%h(and(mi%htylampooned and spoofed.< 27 +orthrop 1rye, well(5nown in this literary field, #laimed that satire had twodefinin% features ;one is wit or humor founded on fantasy or a sense of the %rotes@ue and absurd, theother is an obje#t of atta#5.< 27- hus, satire fre@uently uses e>a%%eration, analo%y, and other rhetori#al

devi#es.

he tarpaulins e>a%%erate. 4urely, ;eam Patay< does not refer to a list of dead individuals nor #ould theAr#hbishop of the "io#ese of Da#olod have intended it to mean that the entire plan of the #andidates in hislist was to #ause death intentionally. he tarpaulin #ari#atures politi#al parties and parodies the intention ofthose in the list. 1urthermore, the list of ;eam Patay< is ju>taposed with the list of ;eam Duhay< thatfurther emphasiBes the theme of its author Reprodu#tive health is an important mar5er for the #hur#h ofpetitioners to endorse.

he messa%es in the tarpaulins are different from the usual messa%es of #andidates. 9le#tion paraphernaliafrom #andidates and politi#al parties are more de#larative and des#riptive and #ontain no sophisti#atedliterary allusion to any so#ial obje#tive. hus, they usually simply e>hort the publi# to vote for a person witha brief des#ription of the attributes of the #andidate. 1or e>ample ;*ote for I>, 4ipa% at iya%a,< ;*ote forIy, =r. Palen%5e,< or ;*ote for IB, 6ba 5ami sa =a5ati.<

his #ourts #onstru#tion of the %uarantee of freedom of e>pression has always been wary of #ensorship orsubse@uent punishment that entails evaluation of the spea5ers viewpoint or the #ontent of ones spee#h.his is espe#ially true when the e>pression involved has politi#al #onse@uen#es. 6n this #ase, it hopes toaffe#t the type of deliberation that happens durin% ele#tions. A be#omin% humility on the part of any humaninstitution no matter how endowed with the se#ular ability to de#ide le%al #ontroversies with finality entailsthat we are not the 5eepers of all wisdom.

3umanitys la#5 of omnis#ien#e, even a#tin% #olle#tively, provides spa#e for the wea5est dissent. oleran#ehas always been a libertarian virtue whose version is embedded in our Dill of Ri%hts. here are o##asionalhereti#s of yesterday that have be#ome our visionaries. 3eterodo>ies have always %iven us pause. he

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


unfor%ivin% but insistent nuan#e that the majority surely and #omfortably disre%ards provides us with the#he#5s upon reality that may soon evolve into #reative solutions to %rave so#ial problems. his is theutilitarian version. 6t #ould also be that it is just part of human ne#essity to evolve throu%h bein% able toe>press or #ommuni#ate.

3owever, the Constitution we interpret is not a theoreti#al do#ument. 6t #ontains other provisions whi#h,ta5en to%ether with the %uarantee of free e>pression, enhan#es ea#h others value. Amon% these are the

provisions that a#5nowled%e the idea of e@uality. 6n shapin% do#trine #onstruin% these #onstitutional values,this #ourt needs to e>er#ise e>traordinary pruden#e and produ#e narrowly tailored %uidan#e fit to the fa#tsas %iven so as not to unwittin%ly #ause the undesired effe#t of dilutin% freedoms as e>er#ised in reality and,thus, render them meanin%less. #ralawred

666.D.4pee#h and e@uality4ome #onsiderations

We first establish that there are two paradi%ms of free spee#h that separate at the point of %ivin% priority toe@uality vis([(vis liberty.272


6n an e@uality(based approa#h, ;politi#ally disadvanta%ed spee#h prevails over re%ulationI, but re%ulationpromotin% politi#al e@uality prevails over spee#h.< 27 his view allows the %overnment leeway to redistributeor e@ualiBe Uspea5in% power, su#h as prote#tin%, even impli#itly subsidiBin%, unpopular or dissentin% voi#es

often systemati#ally subdued within so#ietys ideolo%i#al ladder.270 his view a#5nowled%es that there aredominant politi#al a#tors who, throu%h authority, power, resour#es, identity, or status, have #apabilities thatmay drown out the messa%es of others. his is espe#ially true in a developin% or emer%in% e#onomy that ispart of the majoritarian world li5e ours.

'he -uestion of libertarian tolerance

his balan#e between e@uality and the ability to e>press so as to find ones authenti# self or to parti#ipate inthe self determination of ones #ommunities is not new only to law. 6t has always been a philosophi#alproblemati@ue.

6n his seminal wor5, Repressive 'olerance! philosopher and so#ial theorist 3erbert =ar#use re#o%niBed howinstitutionaliBed ine@uality e>ists as a ba#5%round limitation, renderin% freedoms e>er#ised within su#hlimitation as merely ;prote#tIin% the already established ma#hinery of dis#rimination.< 27? 6n his view, anyimprovement ;in the normal #ourse of events< within an une@ual so#iety, without subversion, onlystren%thens e>istin% interests of those in power and #ontrol.27!


6n other words, abstra#t %uarantees of fundamental ri%hts li5e freedom of e>pression may be#omemeanin%less if not ta5en in a real #onte>t. his tenden#y to ta#5le ri%hts in the abstra#t #ompromisesliberties. 6n his words#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

8iberty is self(determination, autonomyNthis is almost a tautolo%y, but a tautolo%y whi#h results from awhole series of syntheti# jud%ments. 6t stipulates the ability to determine ones own life to be able todetermine what to do and what not to do, what to suffer and what not. Dut the subje#t of this autonomy isnever the #ontin%ent, private individual as that whi#h he a#tually is or happens to beE it is rather theindividual as a human bein% who is #apable of bein% free with the others. And the problem of ma5in%possible su#h a harmony between every individual liberty and the other is not that of findin% a #ompromisebetween #ompetitors, or between freedom and law, between %eneral and individual interest, #ommon andprivate welfare in an established so#iety, but of #reatin% the so#iety in whi#h man is no lon%er enslaved by

institutions whi#h vitiate self(determination from the be%innin%. 6n other words, freedom is still to be #reatedeven for the freest of the e>istin% so#ieties.277&9mphasis in the ori%inal'

=ar#use su%%ests that the demo#rati# ar%ument N with all opinions presented to and deliberated by thepeople N ;implies a ne#essary #ondition, namely, that the people must be #apable of deliberatin% and#hoosin% on the basis of 5nowled%e, that they must have a##ess to authenti# information, and that, on thisbasis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thou%ht.< 27$ 3e submits that ;Idifferent opinionsand Uphilosophies #an no lon%er #ompete pea#efully for adheren#e and persuasion on rational %rounds the Umar5etpla#e of ideas is or%aniBed and delimited by those who determine the national and the individualinterest.< 27


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


A slant toward left manifests from his belief that ;there is a Unatural ri%ht of resistan#e for oppressed andoverpowered minorities to use e>trale%al means if the le%al ones have proved to be inade@uate.< 2$=ar#use,thus, stands for an e@uality that brea5s away and trans#ends from established hierar#hies, power stru#tures,and indo#trinations. he toleran#e of libertarian so#iety he refers to as ;repressive toleran#e.<

egal scholars

he 2th #entury also bears witness to stron% support from le%al s#holars for ;strin%ent prote#tions ofe>pressive liberty,< 2$- espe#ially by politi#al e%alitarians. Considerations su#h as ;e>pressive, deliberative,and informational interests,< 2$2 #osts or the pri#e of e>pression, and ba#5%round fa#ts, when ta5en to%ether,produ#e bases for a system of strin%ent prote#tions for e>pressive liberties.2$


=any le%al s#holars dis#uss the interest and value of e>pressive liberties. Justi#e Drandeis proposed that ;publi# dis#ussion is a politi#al duty.< 2$0 Cass 4ustein pla#ed politi#al spee#h on the upper tier of his two(tiermodel for freedom of e>pression, thus, warrantin% strin%ent prote#tion.2$? 3e defined politi#al spee#h as ;both intended and re#eived as a #ontribution to publi# deliberation about some issue.< 2$!


Dut this is usually related also to fair a##ess to opportunities for su#h liberties.2$7 1air a##ess to opportunity issu%%ested to mean substantive e@uality and not mere formal e@uality sin#e ;favorable #onditions forrealiBin% the e>pressive interest will in#lude some assuran#e of the resour#es re@uired for e>pression andsome %uarantee that efforts to e>press views on matters of #ommon #on#ern will not be drowned out by the

spee#h of better(endowed #itiBens.< 2$$#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Justi#e Drandeis solution is to ;remedy the harms of spee#h with more spee#h.< 2$ his view moves awayfrom playin% down the dan%er as merely e>a%%erated, toward ;ta5Iin% the #osts seriously and embra#Iin%e>pression as the preferred strate%y for addressin% them.< 2


3owever, in some #ases, the idea of more spee#h may not be enou%h. Professor 8auren#e ribe observed theneed for #onte>t and ;the spe#ifi#ation of substantive values before Ie@uality has full meanin%.< 2-ProfessorCatherine A. =a#Linnon adds that ;e@uality #ontinues to be viewed in a formal rather than a substantivesense.< 22 hus, more spee#h #an only mean more spee#h from the few who are dominant rather than thosewho are not.

0ur Hurisprudence

his #ourt has ta#5led these issues.

0smeNa v. C0MC affirmed #ational Press Club v. C0MC on the validity of 4e#tion --&b' of the9le#toral Reforms 8aw of -$7.2 his se#tion ;prohibits mass media from sellin% or %ivin% free of #har%eprint spa#e or air time for #ampai%n or other politi#al purposes, e>#ept to the Commission on9le#tions.< 20his #ourt e>plained that this provision only re%ulates the time and manner of advertisin% inorder to ensure media e@uality amon% #andidates.2? his #ourt %rounded this measure on #onstitutionalprovisions mandatin% politi#al e@uality2!


Arti#le 6:(C, 4e#tion 04e#tion 0. he Commission may, durin% the ele#tion period, supervise or re%ulate the enjoyment orutiliBation of all fran#hises or permits for the operation of transportation and other publi# utilities, media of#ommuni#ation or information, all %rants, spe#ial privile%es, or #on#essions %ranted by the )overnment orany subdivision, a%en#y, or instrumentality thereof, in#ludin% any %overnment(owned or #ontrolled#orporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure e-ual opportunit! time! and

space! and the right to repl! including reasonable! e-ual rates therefor! for public information campaignsand forums among candidates in connection (ith the obHective of holding free! orderl! honest! peaceful!and credible elections. &9mphasis supplied'

Arti#le :666, 4e#tion -4e#tion -. he Congress shall give highest priorit to the ena#tment of measures that prote#t and enhan#ethe ri%ht of all the people to human di%nity, redu#e so#ial, e#onomi#, and political ine-ualities, and remove#ultural ine@uities by e@uitably diffusin% wealth and politi#al power for the #ommon %ood.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


o this end, the 4tate shall re%ulate the a#@uisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and itsin#rements. &9mphasis supplied'

Arti#le 66, 4e#tion 2!4e#tion 2!. he 4tate shall %uarantee e-ual access to opportunities for public service! and prohibit politi#aldynasties as may be defined by law. &9mphasis supplied'

hus, in these #ases, we have a#5nowled%ed the Constitutions %uarantee for more substantive e>pressivefreedoms that ta5e e@uality of opportunities into #onsideration durin% ele#tions.

'he other vie(

3owever, there is also the other view. his is that #onsiderations of e@uality of opportunity or e@uality in theability of #itiBens as spea5ers should not have a bearin% in free spee#h do#trine.

Knder this view, ;members of the publi# are trusted to ma5e their own individual evaluations of spee#h, and%overnment is forbidden to intervene for paternalisti# or redistributive reasons . . . Ithus, ideas are best leftto a freely #ompetitive ideolo%i#al mar5et.< 27 his is #onsistent with the libertarian suspi#ion on the use ofviewpoint as well as #ontent to evaluate the #onstitutional validity or invalidity of spee#h.

he te>tual basis of this view is that the #onstitutional provision uses ne%ative rather than affirmative

lan%ua%e. 6t uses Uspee#h as its subje#t and not Uspea5ers.2$

Conse@uently, the Constitution prote#ts freespee#h per se, indifferent to the types, status, or asso#iations of its spea5ers.2 Pursuant to this, ;%overnment must leave spea5ers and listeners in the private order to their own devi#es in sortin% out therelative influen#e of spee#h.<


Justi#e Romeros dissentin% opinion in 0smeNa v. C0MC formulates this view that freedom of spee#hin#ludes ;not only the ri%ht to e>press ones views, but also other #o%nate ri%hts relevant to the free#ommuni#ation Iof ideas, not e>#ludin% the ri%ht to be informed on matters of publi# #on#ern.< - 4headds#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

And sin#e so many imponderables may affe#t the out#ome of ele#tions N @ualifi#ations of voters and#andidates, edu#ation, means of transportation, health, publi# dis#ussion, private animosities, the weather,the threshold of a voters resistan#e to pressure N the utmost ventilation of opinion of men and issues,throu%h assembly, asso#iation and or%aniBations,both b the candidate and the voter! becomes a sine -uanon for elections to trul reflect the (ill of the electorate.2 &9mphasis supplied'

Justi#e Romeros dissentin% opinion #ited an Ameri#an #ase, if only to emphasiBe free spee#h prima#y su#hthat ;#ourts, as a rule are wary to impose %reater restri#tions as to any attempt to #urtail spee#hes withpoliti#al #ontent,< thus#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

the #on#ept that the %overnment may restri#t the spee#h of some elements in our so#iety in order toenhan#e the relative voi#e of the others is wholly forei%n to the 1irst Amendment whi#h was desi%ned to ;se#ure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and anta%onisti# sour#es< and ;toassure unfettered inter#han%e of ideas for the brin%in% about of politi#al and so#ial #han%es desired by thepeople.< 0

his e#hoes Justi#e /liver Wendell 3olmes submission ;that the mar5et pla#e of ideas is still the bestalternative to #ensorship.< ?


Parentheti#ally and just to provide the whole detail of the ar%ument, the majority of the K4 4upreme Courtin the #ampai%n e>penditures #ase of 4uc)le v. Valeo ;#ondemned restri#tions &even if #ontent(neutral' one>pressive liberty imposed in the name of Uenhan#Iin% the relative voi#e of others and thereby Ue@ualiBIin%a##ess to the politi#al arena.< ! he majority did not use the e@uality(based paradi%m.

/ne flaw of #ampai%n e>penditure limits is that ;any limit pla#ed on the amount whi#h a person #an spea5,whi#h ta5es out of his e>#lusive jud%ment the de#ision of when enou%h is enou%h, deprives him of his freespee#h.< 7


Another flaw is how ;Iany @uantitative limitation on politi#al #ampai%nin% inherently #onstri#ts the sum of

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


publi# information and runs #ounter to our Uprofound national #ommitment that debate on publi# issuesshould be uninhibited, robust, and wide(open.< $


6n fa#t, ;I#onstrainin% those who have funds or have been able to raise funds does not ease the pli%ht ofthose without funds in the first pla#e . . . Iand even if ones main #on#ern is slowin% the in#rease in politi#al#osts, it may be more effe#tive to rely on mar5et for#es to a#hieve that result than on a#tive le%alintervention.< A##ordin% to 3erbert Ale>ander, ;Ito oppose limitations is not ne#essarily to ar%ue that the

s5ys the limit Ibe#ause in any #ampai%n there are saturation levels and a point where spendin% no lon%erpays off in votes per dollar.< -#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

666.C.When private spee#h amounts

to ele#tion paraphernalia

he s#ope of the %uarantee of free e>pression ta5es into #onsideration the #onstitutional respe#t for humanpotentiality and the effe#t of spee#h. 6t valoriBes the ability of human bein%s to e>press and their ne#essityto relate. /n the other hand, a #omplete %uarantee must also ta5e into #onsideration the effe#ts it will havein a deliberative demo#ra#y. 45ewed distribution of resour#es as well as the #ultural he%emony of themajority may have the effe#t of drownin% out the spee#h and the messa%es of those in the minority. 6n asense, so#ial ine@uality does have its effe#t on the e>er#ise and effe#t of the %uarantee of free spee#h. hosewho have more will have better a##ess to media that rea#hes a wider audien#e than those who have less.hose who espouse the more popular ideas will have better re#eption than the subversive and the dissenters

of so#iety. o be really heard and understood, the mar%inaliBed view normally under%oes its own de%ree ofstru%%le.

he traditional view has been to tolerate the viewpoint of the spea5er and the #ontent of his or here>pression. his view, thus, restri#ts laws or re%ulation that allows publi# offi#ials to ma5e jud%ments of thevalue of su#h viewpoint or messa%e #ontent. his should still be the prin#ipal approa#h.

3owever, the re@uirements of the Constitution re%ardin% e@uality in opportunity must provide limits to somee>pression durin% ele#toral #ampai%ns.

hus #learly, re%ulation of spee#h in the #onte>t of ele#toral #ampai%ns made by #andidates or the membersof their politi#al parties or their politi#al parties may be re%ulated as to time, pla#e, and manner. his is theeffe#t of our rulin%s in 0smeNa v. C0MC and #ational Press Club v. C0MC.

Re%ulation of spee#h in the #onte>t of ele#toral #ampai%ns made by persons who are not #andidates or whodo not spea5 as members of a politi#al party whi#h are, ta5en as a whole, prin#ipally advo#a#ies of a so#ialissue that the publi# must #onsider durin% ele#tions is un#onstitutional. 4u#h re%ulation is in#onsistent withthe %uarantee of a##ordin% the fullest possible ran%e of opinions #omin% from the ele#torate in#ludin% thosethat #an #atalyBe #andid, uninhibited, and robust debate in the #riteria for the #hoi#e of a #andidate.

his does not mean that there #annot be a spe#ie of spee#h by a private #itiBen whi#h will not amount to anele#tion paraphernalia to be validly re%ulated by law.

Regulation of election paraphernalia (ill still be constitutionall valid if it reaches into speech of persons (hoare not candidates or (ho do not spea) as members of a political part if the are not candidates! onl if(hat is regulated is declarative speech that! ta)en as a (hole! has for its principal obHect the endorsementof a candidate onl. 'he regulation @a should be provided b la(! @b reasonable! @c narro(l tailored tomeet the obHective of enhancing the opportunit of all candidates to be heard and considering the primacof the guarantee of free e?pression! and @d demonstrabl the least restrictive means to achieve that obHect.

'he regulation must onl be (ith respect to the time! place! and manner of the rendition of the message. "nno situation ma the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content. %or this purpose! it (illnot matter (hether the speech is made (ith or on private propert.

his is not the situation, however, in this #ase for two reasons. 1irst, as dis#ussed, the prin#ipal messa%e inthe twin tarpaulins of petitioners #onsists of a so#ial advo#a#y.

4e#ond, as pointed out in the #on#urrin% opinion of Justi#e Antonio Carpio, the present law N 4e#tion . ofRepubli# A#t +o. ! and 4e#tion !&#' of C/=989C Resolution +o. !-? N if applied to this #ase, will notpass the test of reasonability. A fi>ed siBe for ele#tion posters or tarpaulins without any relation to thedistan#e from the intended avera%e audien#e will be arbitrary. At #ertain distan#es, posters measurin% 2 by

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


feet #ould no lon%er be read by the %eneral publi# and, hen#e, would render spee#h meanin%less. 6t willamount to the abrid%ement of spee#h with politi#al #onse@uen#es. #ralawred

6*Ri%ht to property

/ther than the ri%ht to freedom of e>pression-- and the meanin%ful e>er#ise of the ri%ht to suffra%e,-2 the

present #ase also involves ones ri%ht to property.-


Respondents ar%ue that it is the ri%ht of the state to prevent the #ir#umvention of re%ulations relatin% toele#tion propa%anda by applyin% su#h re%ulations to private individuals.-0


Certainly, any provision or re%ulation #an be #ir#umvented. Dut we are not #onfronted with this possibility.Respondents a%ree that the tarpaulin in @uestion belon%s to petitioners. Respondents have also a%reed,durin% the oral ar%uments, that petitioners were neither #ommissioned nor paid by any #andidate or politi#alparty to post the material on their walls.

9ven thou%h the tarpaulin is readily seen by the publi#, the tarpaulin remains the private property ofpetitioners. heir ri%ht to use their property is li5ewise prote#ted by the Constitution.

6n Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. Alcua*B-?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

Any re%ulation, therefore, whi#h operates as an effe#tive #onfis#ation of private property or #onstitutes anarbitrary or unreasonable infrin%ement of property ri%hts is void, be#ause it is repu%nant to the#onstitutional %uaranties of due pro#ess and e@ual prote#tion of the laws.-! &Citation omitted'

his #ourt in Adiong held that a restri#tion that re%ulates where de#als and sti#5ers should be posted is ;sobroad that it en#ompasses even the #itiBens private property.< -7 Conse@uently, it violates Arti#le 666, 4e#tionof the Constitution whi#h provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due pro#ess oflaw. his #ourt e>plained #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Property is more than the mere thin% whi#h a person owns, it in#ludes the ri%ht to a#@uire, use, and disposeof itE and the Constitution, in the -0th Amendment, prote#ts these essential attributes.

Property is more than the mere thin% whi#h a person owns. 6t is elementary that it in#ludes the ri%ht toa#@uire, use, and dispose of it. he Constitution prote#ts these essential attributes of property. $olden v.

$ard , -! K.4. !!, -, 0- 8. ed. 7$, 7, -$ 4up. Ct. Rep. $. Property #onsists of the free use,enjoyment, and disposal of a persons a#@uisitions without #ontrol or diminution save by the law of the land.- Cooleys Dl. Com. -27. &Du#hanan v. Warley 20? K4 ! I--7'I-$

his #ourt ruled that the re%ulation in Adiong violates private property ri%hts #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he ri%ht to property may be subje#t to a %reater de%ree of re%ulation but when this ri%ht is joined by a ;liberty< interest, the burden of justifi#ation on the part of the )overnment must be e>#eptionally #onvin#in%and irrefutable. he burden is not met in this #ase.

4e#tion -- of Rep. A#t !!0! is so en#ompassin% and invasive that it prohibits the postin% or display ofele#tion propa%anda in any pla#e, whether publi# or private, e>#ept in the #ommon poster areas san#tionedby C/=989C. his means that a private person #annot post his own #rudely prepared personal poster on hisown front door or on a post in his yard. While the C/=989C will #ertainly never re@uire the absurd, there are

no limits to what overBealous and partisan poli#e offi#ers, armed with a #opy of the statute or re%ulation,may do.-

Respondents ordered petitioners, who are private #itiBens, to remove the tarpaulin from their own property.he absurdity of the situation is in itself an indi#ation of the un#onstitutionality of C/=989Cs interpretationof its powers.

1reedom of e>pression #an be intimately related with the ri%ht to property. here may be no e>pressionwhen there is no pla#e where the e>pression may be made. C/=989Cs infrin%ement upon petitionersproperty ri%hts as in the present #ase also rea#hes out to infrin%ement on their fundamental ri%ht to spee#h.

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


Respondents have not demonstrated that the present state interest they see5 to promote justifies theintrusion into petitioners property ri%hts. 9le#tion laws and re%ulations must be reasonable. 6t must alsoa#5nowled%e a private individuals ri%ht to e>er#ise property ri%hts. /therwise, the due pro#ess #lause willbe violated.

C/=989C Resolution +o. !-? and the 1air 9le#tion A#t intend to prevent the postin% of ele#tion propa%anda

in private property without the #onsent of the owners of su#h private property. C/=989C has in#orre#tlyimplemented these re%ulations. Consistent with our rulin% in Adiong, we find that the a#t of respondents insee5in% to restrain petitioners from postin% the tarpaulin in their own private property is an impermissibleen#roa#hments on the ri%ht to property.#ralawred

*arpaulin and its messa%e are not reli%ious spee#h

We pro#eed to the last issues pertainin% to whether the C/=989C in issuin% the @uestioned noti#e and letterviolated the ri%ht of petitioners to the free e>er#ise of their reli%ion.

At the outset, the Constitution mandates the separation of #hur#h and state.2 his ta5es many forms.Arti#le 666, 4e#tion ? of the Constitution, for instan#e provides #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4e#tion ?. +o law shall be made respe#tin% an establishment of reli%ion, or prohibitin% the free e>er#ise

thereof. he free e>er#ise and enjoyment of reli%ious profession and worship, without dis#rimination orpreferen#e, shall forever be allowed. +o reli%ious test shall be re@uired for the e>er#ise of #ivil or politi#alri%hts.

here are two aspe#ts of this provision.2- he first is the non(establishment #lause.22 4e#ond is the freee>er#ise and enjoyment of reli%ious profession and worship.2


he se#ond aspe#t is at issue in this #ase.

Clearly, not all a#ts done by those who are priests, bishops, ustadB, imams, or any other reli%ious ma5e su#ha#t immune from any se#ular re%ulation.20 he reli%ious also have a se#ular e>isten#e. hey e>ist within aso#iety that is re%ulated by law.

he Dishop of Da#olod #aused the postin% of the tarpaulin. Dut not all a#ts of a bishop amounts to reli%ious

e>pression. his notwithstandin% petitioners #laim that ;the views and position of the petitioners, the Dishopand the "io#ese of Da#olod, on the R3 Dill is ine>tri#ably #onne#ted to its Catholi# do%ma, faith, and moraltea#hin%s. . . .< 2?


he diffi#ulty that often presents itself in these #ases stems from the reality that every a#t #an be motivatedby moral, ethi#al, and reli%ious #onsiderations. 6n terms of their effe#t on the #orporeal world, these a#tsran%e from belief, to e>pressions of these faiths, to reli%ious #eremonies, and then to a#ts of a se#ular#hara#ter that may, from the point of view of others who do not share the same faith or may not subs#ribeto any reli%ion, may not have any reli%ious bearin%.

"efinitely, the #hara#teriBations of the reli%ious of their a#ts are not #on#lusive on this #ourt. Certainly, ourpowers of adjudi#ation #annot be blinded by bare #laims that a#ts are reli%ious in nature.

Petitioners erroneously relied on the #ase of bralinag v. 'he Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu2!in#laimin% that the #ourt ;emphati#ally< held that the adherents of a parti#ular reli%ion shall be the ones to

determine whether a parti#ular matter shall be #onsidered e##lesiasti#al in nature.27 his #ourt in 9bralina%e>empted Jehovahs Witnesses from parti#ipatin% in the fla% #eremony ;out of respe#t for their reli%iousbeliefs, Ino matter how ;biBarre< those beliefs may seem to others.< 2$ his #ourt found a balan#e betweenthe assertion of a reli%ious pra#ti#e and the #ompellin% ne#essities of a se#ular #ommand. 6t was an earlyattempt at a##ommodation of reli%ious beliefs.

6n strada v. scritor!2 this #ourt adopted a poli#y of benevolent neutrality #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

With reli%ion loo5ed upon with benevolen#e and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows a##ommodation of reli%ion under #ertain #ir#umstan#es. A##ommodations are %overnment poli#ies that ta5e reli%ion spe#ifi#ally

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


into a##ount not to promote the %overnments favored form of reli%ion, but to allow individuals and %roupsto e>er#ise their reli%ion without hindran#e. heir purpose or effe#t therefore is to remove a burden on, orfa#ilitate the e>er#ise of, a persons or institutions reli%ion. As Justi#e Drennan e>plained, the ;%overnmentImay ta5e reli%ion into a##ount . . . to e>empt, when possible, from %enerally appli#able %overnmentalre%ulation individuals whose reli%ious beliefs and pra#ti#es would otherwise thereby be infrin%ed, or to#reate without state involvement an atmosphere in whi#h voluntary reli%ious e>er#ise may flourish.<

his #ourt also dis#ussed the emon test in that #ase, su#h that a re%ulation is #onstitutional when &-' ithas a se#ular le%islative purposeE &2' it neither advan#es nor inhibits reli%ionE and &' it does not foster ane>#essive entan%lement with reli%ion.-


As aptly ar%ued by C/=989C, however, the tarpaulin, on its fa#e, ;does not #onvey any reli%ious do#trine ofthe Catholi# #hur#h.< 2 hat the position of the Catholi# #hur#h appears to #oin#ide with the messa%e of thetarpaulin re%ardin% the R3 8aw does not, by itself, brin% the e>pression within the ambit of reli%ious spee#h./n the #ontrary, the tarpaulin #learly refers to #andidates #lassified under ;eam Patay< and ;eam Duhay<a##ordin% to their respe#tive votes on the R3 8aw.

he same may be said of petitioners relian#e on papal en#y#li#als to support their #laim that the e>pressionon the tarpaulin is an e##lesiasti#al matter. With all due respe#t to the Catholi# faithful, the #hur#h do#trinesrelied upon by petitioners are not bindin% upon this #ourt. he position of the Catholi# reli%ion in thePhilippines as re%ards the R3 8aw does not suffi#e to @ualify the postin% by one of its members of atarpaulin as reli%ious spee#h solely on su#h basis. he enumeration of #andidates on the fa#e of thetarpaulin pre#ludes any doubt as to its nature as spee#h with politi#al #onse@uen#es and not reli%iousspee#h.

1urthermore, the definition of an ;e##lesiasti#al affair< in Austria v. #ational abor RelationsCommission #ited by petitioners finds no appli#ation in the present #ase. he postin% of the tarpaulin doesnot fall within the #ate%ory of matters that are beyond the jurisdi#tion of #ivil #ourts as enumerated in theAustria #ase su#h as ;pro#eedin%s for e>#ommuni#ation, ordinations of reli%ious ministers, administration ofsa#raments and other a#tivities with atta#hed reli%ious si%nifi#an#e.< 0


A 16+A8 +/9

We maintain sympathies for the C/=989C in attemptin% to do what it thou%ht was its duty in this #ase.3owever, it was misdire#ted.

C/=989Cs %eneral role in#ludes a mandate to ensure e@ual opportunities and redu#e spendin% amongcandidates and their registered political parties. 6t is not to re%ulate or limit the spee#h of the ele#torate as itstrives to parti#ipate in the ele#toral e>er#ise.

he tarpaulin in @uestion may be viewed as produ#in% a #ari#ature of those who are runnin% for publi# offi#e.heir messa%e may be #onstrued %eneraliBations of very #omple> individuals and party(list or%aniBations.hey are #lassified into bla#5 and white as belon%in% to ;eam Patay< or ;eam Duhay.<

Dut this #ari#ature, thou%h not a%reeable to some, is still prote#ted spee#h.

hat petitioners #hose to #ate%oriBe them as purveyors of death or of life on the basis of a sin%le issue Nand a #omple> pie#e of le%islation at that N #an easily be interpreted as an attempt to stereotype the#andidates and party(list or%aniBations. +ot all may a%ree to the way their thou%hts were e>pressed, as infa#t there are other Catholi# dio#eses that #hose not to follow the e>ample of petitioners.

4ome may have thou%ht that there should be more room to #onsider bein% more broad(minded and non( jud%mental. 4ome may have e>pe#ted that the authors would %ive more spa#e to pra#ti#e for%iveness andhumility.

Dut, the Dill of Ri%hts enumerated in our Constitution is an enumeration of our fundamental liberties. 6t isnot a detailed #ode that pres#ribes %ood #ondu#t. 6t provides spa#e for all to be %uided by their #ons#ien#e,not only in the a#t that they do to others but also in jud%ment of the a#ts of others.

1reedom for the thou%ht we #an disa%ree with #an be wielded not only by those in the minority. his #anoften be e>pressed by dominant institutions, even reli%ious ones. hat they made their point dramati#ally

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


and in a lar%e way does not ne#essarily mean that their statements are true, or that they have basis, or thatthey have been e>pressed in %ood taste.

9mbedded in the tarpaulin, however, are opinions e>pressed by petitioners. 6t is a spe#ie of e>pressionprote#ted by our fundamental law. 6t is an e>pression desi%ned to invite attention, #ause debate, andhopefully, persuade. 6t may be motivated by the interpretation of petitioners of their e##lesiasti#al duty, buttheir parishioners a#tions will have very real se#ular #onse@uen#es.

Certainly, provo#ative messa%es do matter for the ele#tions.

What is involved in this #ase is the most sa#red of spee#h forms e>pression by the ele#torate that tends torouse the publi# to debate #ontemporary issues. his is not spee#h by #andidates or politi#al parties to enti#evotes. 6t is a portion of the ele#torate tellin% #andidates the #onditions for their ele#tion. 6t is the substantive#ontent of the ri%ht to suffra%e.

his is a form of spee#h hopeful of a @uality of demo#ra#y that we should all deserve. 6t is prote#ted as afundamental and primordial ri%ht by our Constitution. he e>pression in the medium #hosen by petitionersdeserves our prote#tion.#hanrobleslaw

6#EREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. he temporary restrainin% order previously issued ishereby made permanent. he a#t of the COELEC in issuin% the assailed noti#e dated 1ebruary 22, 2-and letter dated 1ebruary 27, 2- is de#lared un#onstitutional.


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


T#IRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 725, January 21, 2015

DR. DOICIANO F. VILLA#EROSA, SR., Complainant , v. ATT. ISIDRO L. CARACOL, Respondent .

R E S O L $ T I O N

VILLARAA, JR., J."

Defore us is a #omplaint- for disbarment filed by "r. "omi#iano 1. *illahermosa, 4r., a%ainst Atty. 6sidro 8.

Cara#ol for de#eit, %ross mis#ondu#t and violation of oath under 4e#tion 27,2

Rule -$ of the Rules of Court.

*illahermosa is respondent in two land #ases involvin% #an#ellation of eman#ipation patents and transfer#ertifi#ates of title, #an#ellation of spe#ial power of attorney and deeds of absolute sale and re#overy ofownership and possession of par#els of land derived from /ri%inal Certifi#ate of itle &/C' +o. 0 whi#h#overed 2.-$ he#tares of land in *alen#ia, Du5idnon. Counsel on re#ord for plaintiff was Atty. 1idelA@uino.

/C +o. 0 was a homestead patent %ranted to =i#ael Dabela who had two sons, 1ernando and 9fren. Asle%al heirs of =i#ael, 1ernando re#eived ?,2$ s@uare meters while 9fren re#eived ,2! s@uare meters.4ubse@uently, ransfer Certifi#ates of itle &Cs' were issued in their respe#tive names.

When the a%rarian reform law0 was ena#ted on /#tober 2-, -72, eman#ipation patents and titles wereissued to 3ermo%ena and "anilo +ipotnipot, benefi#iaries of the pro%ram, who in turn sold the par#els ofland to #omplainants spouse, Raymunda *illahermosa. A deed of absolute sale was e>e#uted in favor of

Raymunda.

/n =ar#h 2, -0, the "epartment of A%rarian Reform Adjudi#ation Doard &"ARAD' issued a de#isionorderin% the #an#ellation of the eman#ipation patents and Cs derived from /C +o. 0 statin% that it wasnot #overed by the a%rarian reform law. his de#ision was appealed to and affirmed by the "ARAD CentralDoard and the Court of Appeals.

/n 4eptember 2?, 22, Atty. Cara#ol, as ;Addl Counsel for the Plaintiffs(=ovant,< filed a motion fore>e#ution with the "ARAD, =alaybalay, Du5idnon prayin% for the full implementation of the =ar#h 2, -0de#ision.?#hanRoblesvirtual8awlibrary

/n "e#ember 2, 2?, Atty. Cara#ol filed a =otion for 6ssuan#e of 4e#ond Alias Writ of 9>e#ution and"emolition! whi#h he si%ned as ;Counsel for the Plaintiff 9fren Dabela< 7.

*illahermosa filed this #omplaint$ alle%in% that Atty. Cara#ol had no authority to file the motions sin#e he

obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the #ounsel of re#ord. *illahermosa posited that 9fren #ould nothave authoriBed Atty. Cara#ol to file the se#ond motion be#ause 9fren had already been dead for more thana year. 3e #laimed that Atty. Cara#ols real #lient was a #ertain 9rnesto 6. A%uirre, who had alle%edly bou%htthe same par#el of land. *illahermosa presented affidavits of 9frens widow- and dau%hter-- both statin%that 9fren never e>e#uted a waiver of ri%hts and that the par#el of land was sold to *illahermosa throu%h adeed of sale. Doth also stated that they were familiar with 9frens si%nature. hey state that the si%naturein the waiver was different from his usual si%nature. *illahermosa averred that Atty. Cara#ol #ommittedde#eit and %ross mis#ondu#t.

6n addition, *illahermosa #laimed that Atty. Cara#ol introdu#ed falsified and manufa#tured eviden#e into the

7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


pro#eedin%s. Atty. Cara#ol, in introdu#in% a do#ument denominated as Waiver of Ri%hts where 9fren waivedall his ri%hts in favor of 9rnesto A%uirre, was able to se#ure the e>e#ution of the jud%ment in one of the#ases-2 in favor of 9rnesto A%uirre. *illahermosa also filed a #ase- for falsifi#ation of publi# do#ument anduse of falsified do#ument a%ainst 9rnesto A%uirre and Atty. Cara#ol.-0


Atty. Cara#ol insists that 9fren and 9rnesto authoriBed him to appear as ;additional #ounsel<. 3e said thathe had #onsulted Atty. A@uino who advised him to %o ahead with the filin%. =oreover, he stated that he was

not aware that there was a waiver of ri%hts e>e#uted in 9rnesto A%uirres favor.

6n its Report and Re#ommendation,-? the 6nte%rated Dar of the Philippines Commission on Dar "is#ipline &6DPCD"' found that Atty. Cara#ol #ommitted de#eitful a#ts and mis#ondu#t. 6t found that respondent did notpresent #redible eviden#e to #ontrovert the alle%ation that he was not authoriBed by plaintiff or #ounsel ofre#ord. Respondent admitted that at the time of the filin% of the se#ond motion, 9fren was dead. 6t notedthat Atty. Cara#ol did not e>plain how he obtained the authority nor did he present any proof of theauthority. 3owever, there was insuffi#ient eviden#e to hold him liable for falsifi#ation.

he 6DP CD" stated that Atty. Cara#ol #learly misled and misrepresented to the "ARAD, Re%ion : that hewas #ounsel of 9fren to prote#t the interest of 9rnesto A%uirre, his real #lient, violatin% his oath as a lawyer.6t thus re#ommended that Atty. Cara#ol be suspended from the pra#ti#e of law for a period of five years.

he 6DP Doard of )overnors adopted the report and re#ommendation but modified the penalty to one yearsuspension from the pra#ti#e of law.-! Atty. Cara#ol moved for re#onsideration-7 but was denied.-$


Atty. Cara#ol filed a noti#e of appeal- whi#h this Court returned to him sin#e no le%al fees are re@uired inadministrative #ases.2


We adopt the findin%s of the 6DP.

he Rules of Court under Rule -$, 4e#tion 2- provides for a presumption of a lawyers appearan#e onbehalf of his #lient, hen#e #hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

49C. 2-. Authorit of attorne to appear. An attorney is *r&u&- (o 3& *ro*&r'y au()or+&- (or&*r&&n( any au& +n %)+) )& a**&ar, and no written power of attorney is re@uired to authoriBe himto appear in #ourt for his #lient, but the presidin% u-& ay, on o(+on o/ &+()&r *ar(y an- onr&aona3'& roun- ()&r&/or 3&+n )o%n, r&u+r& any a((orn&y %)o au& ()& r+)( (o a**&ar+n a a& (o *ro-u& or *ro& ()& au()or+(y under whi#h he appears, and to dis#lose, wheneverpertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon ma5e su#h order as justi#e re@uires. An attorney willfully appearin% in #ourt for a person without bein% employed, unless byleave of the #ourt, may be punished for #ontempt as an offi#er of the #ourt who has misbehaved in hisoffi#ial transa#tions. &9mphases supplied'

6n and 4an) of the Philippines v. Pamintuan Dev’t. Co.!2- this Court said that while a lawyer is not re@uiredto present proof of his representation, when a #ourt re@uires that he show su#h authoriBation, it isimperative that he show his authority to a#t. hus#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A lawyer is not even re@uired to present a written authoriBation from the #lient. 6n fa#t, the absen#e of aformal noti#e of entry of appearan#e will not invalidate the a#ts performed by the #ounsel in his #lientsname. 3owever, Ia #ourt, on its own initiative or on motion of the other party may re@uire a lawyer toaddu#e authoriBation from the #lient.22

8awyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to a#t as #ounsel for a person without bein%retained nor may he appear in #ourt without bein% employed unless by leave of #ourt.2 6f an attorneyappears on a #lients behalf without a retainer or the re@uisite authority neither the liti%ant whom hepurports to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or affe#ted by his appearan#e unless thepurported #lient ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed authority.20 6f a lawyer #orruptly or willfullyappears as an attorney for a party to a #ase without authority, he may be dis#iplined or punished for#ontempt as an offi#er of the #ourt who has misbehaved in his offi#ial transa#tion.2?


We must also ta5e into #onsideration that even if a lawyer is retained by a #lient, an attorney(#lientrelationship terminates upon death of either #lient or the lawyer.2!


7/18/2019 CASES 25-48


3ere, Atty. Cara#ol was presumed to have authority when he appeared in the pro#eedin%s before the"ARAD. he re#ords are un#lear at what point his authority to appear for 9fren was @uestioned. +either isthere any indi#ation that *illahermosa in fa#t @uestioned his authority durin% the #ourse of the pro#eedin%s.

3owever, Atty. Cara#ol 5new that 9fren had already passed away at the time he filed the =otion for 6ssuan#eof 4e#ond Alias Writ of 9>e#ution and "emolition. As an honest, prudent and #ons#ientious lawyer, heshould have informed the Court of his #lients passin% and presented authority that he was retained by the

#lients su##essors(in(interest and thus the parties may have been substituted.27


We also note the separate opinion of Justi#e 6sa%ani CruB in People v. Mendo*a2$ where he stated#hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6 am bothered by the improvident plea of %uilty made by a##used Juan =a%alop, presumably upon theadvi#e of his #ounsel, Atty. 6sidro 8. Cara#ol of the C8A/ &now the PA/'. 6t would seem that this lawyer wasless than #ons#ientious when he advised his indi%ent #lient to admit a #rime the man did noIt #ommit. Asthe ponen#ia observes, ;outside of his improvident plea of %uilt, there is absolutely no eviden#e a%ainst him presented or forth#omin%. 1rom the eviden#e of the prose#ution, there is no way by whi#h =a%alop #ouldhave been impli#ated.<

6t seems to me that if any one is %uilty in this #ase, it is the PA/ lawyer who, throu%h an in#redible la#5 ofBeal in the dis#har%e of his duties, was apparently willin%, without any moral #ompun#tions at all, andwithout proof, to #onsi%n an inno#ent man to prison.

he PA/ is supposed to defend the a##used, not to #ondemn them without #ause. he defense #ounsel inthis #ase did not seem to appre#iate this responsibility when he prodded =a%alop to plead %uilty and waivedthe ri%ht to submit eviden#e in his behalf.2

While this observation does not serve to e>a#erbate Atty. Cara#ols liability under the present #ir#umstan#es,we would li5e to hi%hli%ht the important role of an attorney in our judi#ial system. De#ause of the parti#ularnature of an attorneys fun#tion it is essential that they should a#t with fairness, honesty and #andor towardsthe #ourts and his #lients. Knder Rule -.- of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor #onsent to the doin% of any in CourtE nor shall he mislead, or allowthe Court to be misled by any artifi#e.

his flows out from the lawyers oath whi#h ea#h lawyer solemnly swears to uphold the law and #ourt

Documents

CASES 25-48