PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

CASE DIGEST: ALEXANDER B. GATUS v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. (G.R. No. 174725; January 26, 2011) FACTS:  Gatus worked at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac beginning on January 1, 1972. He was a covered member of the SSS. He optionally retired from Central Azucarera de Tarlac upon reaching 30 years of service on January 31, 2002, at the age of 62 years.By the time of his retirement, he held the position of Tender assigned at the Distillery Cooling Tower. Sometime in 1995, he was diagnosed to be suffering from Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Triple Vessel and Unstable Angina. His medical records showed him to be hypertensive for 10 years and a smoker. On account of his CAD, he was given by the SSS the following EC/SSS Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits: (a) 8 monthly pensions effective September 1, 1994 and (b) 4 monthly pensions effective January 3, 1997. He became an SSS retirement pensioner on February 1, 2002. Sometime in 2003, an SSS audit revealed the need to recover th

CASE DIGEST: FLOR GUPILAN AGUILAR AND HONORE R. HERNANDEZ v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO; AND PNPCIDG, REPRESENTED BY DIR. EDUARDO MATILLANO. FACTS:  In June 2003, the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNPCIDG) conducted an investigation on the lavish lifestyle and alleged nefarious activities of certain personnel of the Bureau of Customs, among them petitioners Flor Gupilan Aguilar (Aguilar), then Chief of the Miscellaneous Division, and Honore Hernandez (Hernandez), Customs Officer III. Following weeks of investigation, PNP-CIDG team found out that petitioner Aguilar owns properties, real and personal, which are not declared in her SALNs. It was also found out that in the span of four years, petitioner took 13 unofficial trips and would have spent 3.4M as per PNP-CIDGs estimate. In view these circumstances, petitioner was charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty. The ombudsman created an investigating pan

CASE DIGEST: TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TESDA) v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., and COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA. FACTS:  The TESDA audit team discovered that for the calendar years 2004-2007, TESDA paid Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) twice each year to its officials from two sources: (1) the General Fund for locally-funded projects and (2) the Technical Education and Skills Development Project (TESDP) Fund for foreign-assisted projects. Payment of EME was authorized under the General Provisions of the 2004-2007 General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) subject to certain conditions. The audit team disallowed the payment of EME amounting to P5,498,706.60 for being in excess of the amount allowed in the 2004-2007 GAAs. It was further discovered that EME were disbursed to TESDA officials whose positions were not of equivalent ranks as authorized by the Department of Budget and M

CASE DIGEST: DANILO ESCARIO, et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), et al. FACTS:  The petitioners were among the regular employees of respondent Pinakamasarap Corporation (PINA), a corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling food seasoning. They were members of petitioner Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Balanced Foods (Union). At 8:30 in the morning of March 13, 1993, all the officers and some 200 members of the Union walked out of PINA’s premises and proceeded to the barangay office to show support for Juanito Cañete, an officer of the Union charged with oral defamation by Aurora Manor, PINA’s personnel manager, and Yolanda Fabella, Manor’s secretary. It appears that the proceedings in the barangay resulted in a settlement, and the officers and members of the Union all returned to work thereafter. As a result of the walkout, PINA preventively suspended all officers of the Union because of the March 13, 1993 incident. PINA terminated the office

CASE DIGEST: SPOUSES FERNANDO AND ANGELINA EDRALIN v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK. (G.R. No. 168523; March 9, 2011). FACTS:  Veterans Bank granted petitioner spouses Fernando and Angelina Edralin (Edralins) a loan in the amount of P270,000.00.As security thereof, petitioners executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in favor of Veterans Bank over a real property situated in Paraque and registered in the name of petitioner Fernando Edralin. The Edralins failed to pay their obligation to Veterans Bank.Thus,on June 28, 1983, Veterans Bank filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure. Veterans Bank emerged as the highest bidder at the said foreclosure sale and was issued the corresponding Certificate of Sale. Upon the Edralins failure to redeem the property during the one-year period provided under Act No. 3135, Veterans Bank acquired absolute ownership of the subject property.Consequently, Veterans Bank caused the consolidation of ownership of the subject property in its name. Despite the

The writ of prohibition does not lie against the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Since in issuing the questioned IRR of R.A. No. 9207, the National Government Administration Committee was not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function, which is the scope of a petition for prohibition under Section 2, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant prohibition should be dismissed outright. Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners’ remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. Read the following cases: Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August 3, 2006 Funa vs. Executive Secr

CASE DIGEST: ANTONIO PERLA v. MIRASOL BARING and RANDY PERLA FACTS:  Respondent Mirasol Baring (Mirasol) and petitioner Antonio Perla (Antonio) were allegedly neighbors. Eventually, they became sweethearts. When Mirasol became pregnant, Antonio allegedly assured her that he would support her. However, Antonio started to evade her. Mirasol and her then minor son, Randy Perla (Randy), filed before the RTC a Complaint for support against Antonio. Mirasol and Randy thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to support Randy. During the trial, Mirasol presented Randys Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal Certificate indicating her and Antonio as parents of the child. Mirasol testified that she and Antonio supplied the information in the said certificates. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Antonio to support Randy, which was affirmed by CA. ISSUE:  Is Randy entitled for support from Antonio? HELD:  Mirasol and Randy's Complaint for support is based on Randy's alleged illegitima

CASE DIGEST: UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE V. ABUEVA, RAUL P. DE GUZMAN, RUBEN P. ASPIRAS, EMMANUEL P. BELLO, WILFREDO P. DAVID, CASIANO S. ABRIGO, and JOSEFINA R. LICUANAN, Petitioners, vs. HON. AGUSTIN S. DIZON, his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, STERN BUILDERS, INC., and SERVILLANO DELA CRUZ, Respondents. (G.R. No. 171182; August 23, 2012) FACTS:  University of the Philippines (UP) entered into a General Construction Agreement with respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders) for the construction and renovation of the buildings in the campus of the UP in Los Bas. UP was able to pay its first and second billing. However, the third billing worth P273,729.47 was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Thus, Stern Builders sued the UP to collect the unpaid balance.   On November 28, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision ordering UP to pay Stern Builders. Then on

CASE DIGEST: PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. JOEY B. TEVES. (G.R. No. 143511; November 15, 2010) CLICK HERE: Here's another version of this case digest. FACTS:  Respondent was employed as Clerk of PLDT until he was terminated because he violated the (3) unauthorized leaves of absence committed within 3 years, contrary to the policy of PLDT. From 1990 and 1992, there were 3 instances of unauthorized leaves of absence from the Respondent. On the final instance, the explanation of Teves was unmeritorious, which led to his dismissal. He filed a complaint of illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Arbiter found out that the dismissal was legal, but it ordered PLDT to give 20,000 php to Teves. Teves appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Arbiters decision. It upheld the validity of the absence on account of Teves wife having complications during childbirth. PLDT filed a petition for Certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The CA f

CASE DIGEST: RAUL PALOMATA v. NESTOR COLMENARES and TERESA GURREA. (G.R. No. 174251; December 15, 2010). FACTS:  This case involves a parcel of land along the Camambugan Creek in Balasan, Iloilo on which stand petitioner Raul Palomata's house and talyer. Letecia Colmenares claiming ownership over the said land, filed a criminal complaint for squatting against Raul in 1981. However, for reasons undisclosed by the records, the case was eventually dismissed. In order to prevent further ejectment from the subject property, Raul, together with his father Alipio, filed a complaint in 1984 before the RTC, sitting as a Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR), for maintenance and damages against Letecia, her son Nestor Colmenares, and Teresa Gurrea. The complaint alleged that Alipio Palomata (Alipio) was the bona fide agricultural lessee of Letecia. After the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 27,an approximate two-hectare portion of Colmenares landholding was awarded to Alipio, who was issu

CASE DIGEST: ALBERT TENG, doing business under the firm name ALBERT TENG FISH TRADING, and EMILIA TENG-CHUA v. ALFREDO S. PAHAGAC,EDDIE D. NIPA,ORLANDOP. LAYESE, HERNAN Y. BADILLES and ROGER S. PAHAGAC. (G.R. No. 169704; November 17, 2010) FACTS:  Albert Teng (Petitioner) is engaged in the business of deep sea fishing, and he employs master fishermen to facilitate his fishing venture. These master fishermen hire the Respondent workers as checkers of the volume of the fish caught in every voyage. Respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissalthey averred that there was no employment contract, and sometime around Sept. 2002, Teng doubted the amounts that they were telling him regarding how much fish were caught. By December, Teng told them their services were terminated. The VA dismissed the complaint because there was no employer-employee relationship. Respondents received the decision on June 12, 2003; They filed an MR which was denied and they received the order on July 8, 200

CASE DIGEST: PASIG PRINTING CORPORATION v. ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FACTS:  MPLDC leased Payanig property or Home Depot property to ECRM Enterprises (ECRM). Subsequently, ECRM assigned all its rights in the contract of lease including the option to renew to Rockland. Later, Rockland erected a building on the area and subleased certain portions to MC Home Depot. In December of 2000, MPLDC demanded that Rockland vacate the property. To pre-empt any action by MPLDC, Rockland filed the first of the three cases a civil case for specific performance asking MPLDC to execute a 3-year extended contract of lease in its favor. To protect its interest, MPLDC filed the second case, an unlawful detainer case, before the (MeTC) of Pasig City. Before the Court could rule on the merits of the petition with regard to the specific performance case, the separate unlawful detainer case was dismissed by the MeTC reasoning out that the issue sought to be resolved was not one of possession,

CASE DIGEST: CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL [CABEU-NFL] v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC. [CAB]. FACTS:  CABEU-NFL is a registered labor union and the bargaining agent of Respondent CAB. CABEU-NFL proposed a collective bargaining agreement which was rejected by CAB. With no common ground, the petitioner filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). CAB issued a letter stating that the petitioner is no longer the bargaining agent of CAB because 90% of its rank and file employees left the union for another one. This was not acted upon by the NCMB, which led to the filing of Unfair Labor Practice with the Labor Arbiter. The LA dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed the decision upon appeal. CAB elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the NLRC. Thus prompting the filing of the instant petition. ISSUE:  Was there unfair labor practice? HELD:  Article 247 of the Labor Code provides that &q

CASE DIGEST: MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and CRISPIN CHAN v. GREGORIO ROGELIO. FACTS:  Gregorio Rogelio (Rogelio) was hired by Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, a copra dealer, in 1949. The company was later bought by Masing Chan and renamed Masings and Sons Development Corporation (Masings) and his son, Crispin, later oversaw the business. While Rogelio signed a certification in 1991 to allow him to receive retirement benefits from SSS, he did not officially retire until 1997 upon reaching the compulsory age of retirement. Rogelio filed a claim in the NLRC for unpaid retirement benefits, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, premium pay for holidays and rest days and COLA against Chan and Masings. Masings protested and alleged that Rogelio was an employee of Wayne Lim, an independent copra buyer. The Labor Arbiter held that Rogelio was not an employee of Masings and dismissed the claim. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. On appeal, the CA reversed and held

CASE DIGEST: SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. and MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FACTS:  Macgraphics owned several billboards across Metro Manila and other surrounding municipalities, one of which was a 35 x 70 neon billboard located at the Magallanes Interchange in Makati City.The Magallanes billboard was leased by Macgraphics to Sime Darby in April 1994 at a monthly rental of P120,000.00. The lease had a term of four years and was set to expire on March 30, 1998. Upon signing of the contract, Sime Darby paid Macgraphics a total ofP1.2 million representing the ten-month deposit which the latter would apply to the last ten months of the lease. Thereafter, Macgraphics configured the Magallanes billboard to feature Sime Darby's name and logo. On April 22, 1996, Sime Darby executed a Memorandum of Agreement[(MOA)with Goodyear, whereby it agreed to sell its tire manufacturing plants and other assets to the latter for a total ofP1.5 billion.

CASE DIGEST: SPOUSES ELEGIO CAÑEZO AND DOLIA CAÑEZO v. SPOUSES APOLINARIO AND CONSORCIA L. BAUTISTA FACTS:  Spouses Elegio and Dolia Cañezo (appellees) are the registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 186 square meters, covered by TCT No. 32911. Whereas, Spouses Apolinario and Consorcia Bautista (appellants) are the registered owners of a parcel of land, containing an area of 181 square meters, covered by TCT No. 31727. Both parcels of land are located at Coronado Heights, Barangka Ibaba, Mandaluyong City and registered with the Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong City. Appellants’ lot is adjacent to that of appellees. Sometime in 1995, appellees started the construction of a building on their lot. During the construction, appellees discovered that their lot was encroached upon by the structures built by appellants without appellees’ knowledge and consent. Three surveys were conducted which confirmed the fact of encroachment. However, despite oral and written demand

CASE DIGEST: FAIR SHIPPING CORP., and/or KOHYU MARINE CO., LTD. v. JOSELITO T. MEDEL FACTS:  On November 23, 1998, Medel was hired by Fair Shipping Corporation (Fair Shipping), for and in behalf of its foreign principal Kohyu Marine Co., Ltd. (Kohyu) Medel was employed as an Able Seaman of the vessel M/V Optima. On board M/V Optima, Medel figured in an unfortunate accident. During the conduct of emergency drills aboard the vessel, one of Medel’s co-workers lost control of the manual handle of a lifeboat, causing the same to turn uncontrollably; and it struck Medel in the forehead. He was given first aid treatment and immediately brought to the hospital. Medel was repatriated to the Philippines on March 13, 1999 and was admitted to the Metropolitan Hospital on the said date. Dr. Robert D. Lim, the company-designated physician examined Medel. Medel’s accident rendered him incapable of performing his usual or customary work for more than 120 days. Thus, Medel filed a complaint aga

CASE DIGEST: AVELINA F. SAGUN v. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FACTS:  Petitioner applied with respondent for the position of caretaker in Taiwan. In consideration of her placement and employment, petitioner allegedly paid P30,000.00 cash, P10,000.00 in the form of a promissory note, and NT$60,000.00 through salary deduction, in violation of the prohibition on excessive placement fees. The complaint for lack of merit. Specifically, the POEA Administrator found that petitioner failed to establish facts showing a violation of Article 32, since it was proven that the amount received by respondent (only P20,840.00) as placement fee was covered by an official receipt, and because respondent processed petitioner’s papers as caretaker, the position she applied and was hired for. The Secretary of Labor and the Office of the President partially granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, as they found that there was indeed collection of excessive fees. The appellate

CASE DIGEST: BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO v. BIO RESEARCH, INC. AND WILSON Y. ANG FACTS: Petitioners were employees of respondent Bio Research. They were subsequently dismissed from employment. Bio Research claims that due to financial difficulties, it was forced to retrench petitioners in a move towards financial efficiency. Petitioners were made to execute a quitclaim as they were given their separation pay. Petitioners still pursued a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. They also claim that the illegal dismissal was done as retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint they filed against one of the company managers. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be illegal as the financial difficulties of Bio Research were unproven, and that no criteria was established in selecting the employees to be let go. The LA ordered for payment of backwages and reinstatement, as well as the subsidiary liability of respondent Ang, for having acted in bad faith. The NLR

CASE DIGEST: CLARITA J. CARBONEL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FACTS:  Petitioner Clarita J. Carbonel was an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Makati City. She was formally charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Documents by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSCRO IV). On May 21, 1999, petitioner went to the CSCRO IV to secure a copy of the result of the Computer Assisted Test (CATS) Career Service Professional Examination given on March 14, 1999, because she lost the original copy of her Career Service Professional Certificate of Rating (hereafter referred to as certificate of rating). Petitioner was directed to accomplish a verification slip. The Examination Placement and Service Division noticed that petitioner’s personal and physical appearance was entirely different from the picture of the examinee attached to the application form and the picture seat plan. It was also discovered that the signature aff

CASE DIGEST: AIR FRANCE v. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO (G.R. No. 165266; December 15, 2010) FACTS:  Gillego, then incumbent Congressman and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, was invited to participate as one of the keynote speakers at the 89th Inter-Parliamentary Conference Symposium on Parliament Guardian of Human Rights to be held in Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, Japan. On May 16, 1993, Gillego left Manila on board Air Frances aircraft bound for Paris, France. While waiting at the Airport for his connecting flight to Budapest scheduled a few hours after his arrival learned that Air France had another aircraft bound for Budapest with an earlier departure time than his scheduled flight. He then made arrangements for the change in his booking. He was given a corresponding ticket and boarding pass and also a new baggage claim stub for his checked-in luggage. However, his baggage despite numerous follow-up was never delivered to him pro