#131ATTY. FE Q. PALMIANO-SALVADOR, petitioner VS. CONSTANTINO ANGELES, substituted BY LUIZ G. ANGELES, respondentGR NO. 171219 (3 SEPTEMBER, 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent is one of the registered owner of a land which was occupied by Galiga, a lessee, from 1979-1993. Galiga sold the land to petitioner on 1993, which the former pretended to be the owner of the land. Upon learning about the occupation of petitioner to his land, he sent a letter to him informing him to vacate the property and filed a complaint for ejectment thru Rosario Diaz, Jr. on October 1994. The MeTC rendered its decision in favor of the respondent.

Petitioner filed a petition, claiming that Diaz has no authority to file the complaint which was denied. Thus, raised his petition to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUES:

What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by those who has no authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action?

HELD:

A complaint is filed for and on behalf of the plaintiff by ones who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. Therefore, MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null and void.

#132JUDGE ARMANDO S. ADLAWAN, complainant VS. ESTRELLA P. CAPILITAN, respondentAM NO. P 12 3080 (29 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent admitted to complainant that she was pregnant to a married man, who claimed that hes already separated from his wife. Thus, she succumbs to the temptation. Complainant felt duty-bound to report the matter to court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.

HELD:

Yes. She claimed that the man who impregnated her represented to be separated from hi, the fact remains that the man is still married. Thus, there is no doubt that respondent engaged in sexual relation with a married man, which not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary but also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

#133PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee VS. RAUL BERIBER y FUENTES @ JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @ GERRY BERIBER @ BONG @ RAUL FUENTES, appellantGR NO. 195243 (29 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

October 3, 2000, Mrs. Vergara was found dead inside their house, lying lifeless on a bamboo bed. During that time victims husband went to Quezon City at 6am, leaving her, his children, and the appellant. Appellant works at their rice mill as a helper. According to witnesses, appellant seems to be restless and that he went in and out of the victims house a couple of times. The last time they saw him; he was carrying his bag and never came back. Henry, the husband, came home and found the inside of the house in disarray and his wife covered in blood.

Appellant was apprehended in Capiz and has been using different allias to avoid the authorities. He was brought back to San Pablo and was tried. He was later found guilty and was sentenced to death, which was later reduced to a lesser punishment in the retrial.

ISSUES:

Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

HELD:

Yes. Appellant was not seen by the victims family since the crime. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be establish, for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence.

#134ESTRELLA TAGLAY, petitioner VS. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY and LOVERIE PALACAY, respondentsGR NO. 164258 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

June 2, 2001, 2:30pm, petitioner entered the home of private respondent Palacay uninvited. There and then, maltreated, boxed, and choked her (Palacay). A pre-trial was set on August 13, 2002, later on they found out that the private respondent was a minor. Thus, the case was transferred to Digos RTC as stated in RA 8369 and circular 11-99.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:

No. The information filed with the MCTC cannot be used as a basis for valid indictment. There is no point in proceeding under defective information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction. The information filed with the MCTC must thus first be amended and thereafter filed with the RTC. Pending the filing of such information, the RTC has not yet acquired jurisdiction.

#135(STANFILCO) DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner VS. RENALDO B. RODRIGUEZ and LIBORIO AFRICA, respondentsGR NO. 174646 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Africa is the registered owner of a 17 hectares Banana Plantation at General Santos. On November 1, 1966, he entered into a Farm Management Contract (FMC) with his farm manager Yuchengco. The management rights were transferred to Checkered Farm Inc., which the latter entered an Exclusive Purchasing Agreement with petitioner. Checkered Farms allowed petitioner to introduced installations and improvements in the farm and to dismantle and remove all non-permanent installations and improvements it has introduced upon the expiration of the contract.

October 15, 1991, Africa gave the land to Rodriguez as payments of his obligations to him. Rodriguez made a proposal to petitioners allowing them to continue operations and management which the latter denied and instead offered to grant the same terms and conditions as those given to independent small growers in General Santos. As no agreement was reached petitioner dismantled and removed all improvements introduced in the farm damaging the land and its crops.

On April 1992, respondent filed a complaint for recovery and sum of money and damages against petitioners which was granted by the RTC.

Both petitioner and respondent filed an appeal to the CA, whose decision in favor to respondent with modification of the RTCs decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondents for damages when the agreement with Checkered farm is damnum absque injuria.

HELD:

Yes. Damnum Absque Injuria, the legitimate exercise of a persons right, even of it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a remedy for the loss. This principle, however does not apply when there is an abuse of a persons right as in this case. Petitioner exercised such right arbitrarily, unjustly and excessively resulting in damaged to respondents plantation.

#136BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-METRO MANILA, respondentGR NO 175678 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent, employees of the BPI, has existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner BPI. The CBA provides loan benefits and relatively low interest rates. Thereafter, petitioner issued a no Negative Data Bank policy (no NDB) for the implementation/availment of the manpower loans which the respondent objected. The issue was raised to the Voluntary Arbitrator whose decision was in favor to respondent.

The petitioner appealed to the CA, affirming the latters decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the no NDB violates the respondent CBA.

HELD:

Yes. The no NDB policy is a new condition which is never contemplated in the CBA and at some point, unreasonable to the employees because it provide that before an employee or his/her spouse can avail of the loan benefits under the CBA, the said employee or his or her spouse must not be listed in the no NDB.

#137ROMEO M. MONTALLANA, petitioner VS. OFFICE of the OMBUDSMAN and the HONOR COURT OF APPEALS (15TH DIVISION), respondentsGR NO.179677 (15 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

August 18, 2001, the Manor Hotel at Kamias Road, Quezon City was engulfed by fire that killed 74 people and injured several others. Upon investigation, it was found that the cause was a faulty electrical wiring systems. In conclusion, the cause of the incident was due to gross negligence of the public officials and the local government, who are incharge in the licensing operation of the Manor Hotel.

The formal complaint was filed against petitioner and several other officials, before the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the OMB for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross negligence. June 17, 2003, petitioner was found guilty. On July 26, 2004, the OMB issued a memorandum that modified the decision, stating that the benefits he received must be returned to the government.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. He sought to the CA but was also denied.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner is liable for the acts and omission of his subordinates.

HELD:

Yes. It was incumbent on petitioner as head of the Electrical Division to see to it that proper annual inspections are conducted on the existing electrical installations in Quezon City.

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected.

#138PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee VS. ALSHER BERMEJO y LUMPAYAO, appellantGR NO. 195307 (6 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

AAA, private complainant, 20 years old, single and unemployed, lives in Misamis Occidental and neighbor of appellant. She moved to Makati City and stayed with her brothers BBB and CCC, and her cousin DDD, while looking for work. Appellant, construction worker, stays with them.

November 3, 2007, 9pm, CCC, DDD and appellant was drinking outside the house while AAA was inside. 1am November 4, she went to bed and the others went in. 3am, AAA was asleep on the wooden bed, while CCC and appellant were asleep on the floor. Appellant then went beside her and kissed her. He threatened to kill her if she makes any noise. She was shocked and was unable to do anything but cry. He raped her. After the deed, appellant said hell marry her and fell asleep. AAA didnt repot immediately because of fear.

7am, appellant, CCC and DDD went to mass, afterwards AAA went to mass. 7pm, AAA told DDD what happened and DDD told CCC, which the latter told BBB. AAA, CCC, and DDD report the incident. AAA was examined. Result showed deep-healed lacerations was evident and probably caused 21 days prior. No spermatozoa were found inside her private parts. November 5, 2007, appellant was arrested. On his defense, he said that they were lovers from 2003-2004. During his stay with them, he and AAA had 2 sexual encounters, first was October 31, 2007 and on November 4, 2007 which are both consensual.

April 15, 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of rape. Appellant then raised the case to the CA, which affirmed the latters decision.

ISSUES:

HELD:

No. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. In the present case, the acts of AAA after the alleged rape are totally uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. Her indifference on the lingering presence of the appellant at the scene of the alleged crime after the same happened instead of immediately reporting the incident naturally makes her testimony tainted with uncertainty. AAAs failure to resist the alleged assault indubitably casts doubt on her credibility and the veracity of her narration of the incident.

#139MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, AFP (RET), petitioner VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, representing the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, GENERAL EDUARDO SL. OBANM, JR. AND LT. GENERAL GAUDENCIO S. PANGILINAN, AFP (RET), DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, respondentsGR NO. 198554 (JULY 30, 2012)

FACTS:

Petitioner is a retired AFP M.Gen. charged with the violation of the 96th article of war and 97th article of war. He failed to disclose all his assets for the year 2003 and 2002, becoming an immigrant of USA thereby violating his oath. He has found guilty and was dishonorably discharge from the service, forfeited all pay and allowances due and to become due and to be confined at hard labor at such place the authority may direct for a period of 2 years. The petitioner being a general, the case needs confirmation of the president. After 6 years of confinement, the office of the President confirmed the sentence.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the President has jurisdiction in issuing the confirmation of petitioners sentence.

HELD:

Yes. Petitioner was an officer on the active service when he committed the violations. Clearly the General Court Martial has jurisdiction of the case. Having established the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial over the case and the person of the petitioner the President, as Commander-in-chief, therefore acquired the jurisdiction to confirm petitioners sentence and mentioned in Art 47 of the Article of War.

#140SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and MERCIDITA VILLUGA, petitioners VS. KELLY HARDWARE and CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY Inc., represented by ERNESTO V. YU, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT and GENERAL MANAGER, respondentGR NO. 176570 (18 JULY 2012)

FACTS:

November 19, 1992 January 5, 1993, the spouses Villuga made purchases of construction supplies from Kelly Hardware in the sum of P 259,809.50, which has not been paid up to this time. Thus, Kelly filed a complaint to the RTC on March 3, 1995. The rendered decision was in favor to Kelly.

Petitioners, on their answer to the allegations, said that they already made payments on March 4 and August 9, 1994 amounting to P 130, 301.80. Thus, the remaining balance should not be P 259, 809.50. Respondent say that the payment made was deducted to their other obligations that the petitioners owed from them.

September 4, 1997, respondent filed a motion to expunge with motion for summary judgment which was granted.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. It was then raised to the CA which was also denied.

ISUUES:

Whether or not the summary judgment issued by the RTC was proper and with legal bases.

HELD:

Yes. Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. Such judgment us generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, disposition, pleadings, or admissions of the parties.

In their case, petitioners did not assert that the payment made should be deducted to the sum sought to recover by respondent, leading the court to no other conclusion that these payment were indeed applied to their other debts.