PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

CASE DIGEST: SPI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. VICTORIA K. MAPUA, Respondent. FACTS:  Victoria K. Mapua (Mapua) alleged that she was hired in 2003 by SPI Technologies, Inc. (SPI) and was the Corporate Developments Research/Business Intelligence Unit Head and Manager of the company. Subsequently in August 2006, the then Vice President and Corporate Development Head, Peter Maquera (Maquera) hired Elizabeth Nolan (Nolan) as Mapuas supervisor. Sometime in October 2006, the hard disk on Mapuas laptop crashed, causing her to lose files and data. Mapua informed Nolan and her colleagues that she was working on recovering the lost data and asked for their patience for any possible delay on her part in meeting deadlines. On November 13, 2006, Mapua retrieved the lost data with the assistance of National Bureau of Investigation Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division. Yet, Nolan informed Mapua that she was realigning Mapuas position to become a subordinate of co-manager Same

CASE DIGEST: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), Petitioner, v. RODOLFO ZALDARRIAGA, Respondent. FACTS:  Zaldarriaga was the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Lemery, Iloilo. November 16, 1998, the COA conducted an audit examination of the accountabilities of respondents cash and accounts covering the period 1997 to 1998. Based on the audit conducted, the COA auditors prepared a report showing a deficiency of 4.7 million pesos. Respondent was asked to restitute the deficiency but he failed to do so. Subsequenlty, COA filed a Letter-Complaint. respondent contested the findings of the COA auditors alleging that it was inaccurate, incorrect, and devoid of merit. Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Treasurer also conducted its own investigation. Its findings did not indicate any shortage but, instead, pointed out that had the mayor, treasurer, and accountant observed COA Rules and Regulations in the proper disbursement of funds, the irregularity would not have been commit

CASE DIGEST: AMELIA R. OBUSAN, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent. FACTS:  Back in 1979, respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) hired petitioner Amelia R. Obusan (Obusan), who eventually became the Manager of the PNB Medical Office.At that time, PNB was a government-owned or controlled corporation, whose retirement program for its employees was administered by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977 (Presidential Decree No. 1146). On May 27, 1996, PNB was privatized.Section 6 of the Revised Charter of the PNB (Executive Order No. 80, December 3, 1986), with respect to the effect of privatization of PNB, provides Change in Ownership of the Majority of the Voting Equity of the Bank. When the ownership of the majority of the issued common voting shares passes to private investors, the stockholders shall cause the adoption and registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the

CASE DIGEST: PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for himself and in behalf of his co-heirs LODOVICO, RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, all Surnamed VALIAO and NEMESIO M. GRANDEA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MACARIO ZAFRA, and MANUEL YUSAY, Respondents. FACTS:  On August 11, 1987, petitioners filed with the RTC an application for registration of a parcel of land situated in Barrio Galicia, Municipality of Ilog, Negros Occidental. On June 20, 1988, private oppositors filed their Motion to Dismiss the application on the following grounds: (1) the land applied for has not been declared alienable and disposable; (2) res judicata has set in to bar the application for registration; and (3) the application has no factual or legal basis. On August 24, 1988, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application for registration. On July 3, 1989, the RTC denied private oppositors' Motion to Dismiss. Trial thereafter ensued. In

CASE DIGEST: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,Petitioner,v. PRISCILLA S. CORDOVA, Deputy Collector for Assessment, Bureau of Customs,Respondent. FACTS:  The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) charged Priscilla S. Cordova (respondent), Deputy Collector for Assessment of the Bureau of Customs, Port of Subic, together with Atty. Baltazar Morales (Morales), Chief of the Assessment Division, for violating, inter alia, Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the pertinent provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, Republic Act No. 6713, and the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code in connection with their alleged participation in the alleged smuggling of sixteen (16) high-end luxury vehicles consigned to Hidemitsu Trading Corporation (Hidemitsu Trading), 14of which were taken out of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) without paying the required taxes and duties therefor. After preliminary investigation, the OMB, finding probable

The following are the three (3) characteristics of property: [1] Utility for the satisfaction of moral or economic wants. [2] Susceptibility of appropriation. [3] Individuality or substantivity (that is, it can exist by itself, and not merely as a part of a whole).

In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance. (Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143838, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 182)

A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious. Such action for the annulment of such partition, however, must be brought within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud. (Feliciano v. Canoza)

Rights of the Usufructuary Art. 579. Usufructuary may make useful or luxurious improvements on the property under usufruct, provided he does not alter its form and substance, but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He may however remove them should it be possible without causing injury to the property. Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he made on the property against any damage to the same. (Civil Code of the Philippines)

CASE DIGEST: PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR PAUL A. AQUINO, FRANCIS A. PALAFOX, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO L. ESTRELLA, Respondent. FACTS:  PNOC-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC), then a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in the exploration and utilization of renewable energy resources. Respondent Estrella was a Senior Logistics Assistant, her duties included initiating and handling the terms and conditions for the bidding of heavy and support equipment rentals for PNOC-EDCs project locations, and evaluating and recommending bid contracts for management approval. Estrella carried out an inspection on May 13, 2004 wherein JR Car Services, owned by Dumaguete-based contractor Remigio Jacobe, qualified as the first priority contractor for the Asian Utility Vehicle (AUV) Category, having offered 3 units for lease at the rental rate of P1,250 per day. The vehicles of JR Services were included in the bid summary for the 2004 Contract. Jacobe charge

In an action for partition, all other persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Not only the co-heirs but also all persons claiming interests or rights in the property subject of partition are indispensable parties. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to implead all indispensable parties, that is, not only X and Y but also respondents in their capacity as vendees and donees of the subject fishponds. Without their presence in the suit the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality against them. Being strangers to the first case, they are not bound by the decision rendered therein; otherwise, they would be deprived of their constitutional right to due process. In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a

CASE DIGEST: EFREN G. AMIT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), and THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents. FACTS:  The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit on the Multi-Purpose Drying Pavement (MPDP) project conducted by the Department of Agriculture (DA). COA discovered that eleven (11) government employees were allegedly responsible for ghost projects and misappropriation of public funds. Thus, COA administratively charged them before the Ombudsman including petitioner Efren Amit who was a Senior Agriculturist of the DA whose functions include the approval of MPDP project documents. The Ombudsman found all the officials so charged guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for conspiring in the falsification of documents to facilitate the disbursement and misappropriation of the funds intended for the MPDP projects. In some of the vouchers, the signatures of certain officials were forged. It was also

CASE DIGEST: ELADIO D. PERFECTO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, respondent. FACTS: Eladio filed a complaint against Judge Alma Consuelo Esidera, accusing her of soliciting and receiving the amount of one thousand pesos from practitioner Atty. Yruma and the same amount from Public Prosecutor Diaz, allegedly to defray expenses from a religious celebration and barangay fiesta. Attached to the Complaint was an affidavit executed by Prosecutor Ching who claimed to have witnessed the first incident and heard that respondent solicited the same amount from Diaz. There were also claims regarding respondent's conduct in performing her duties and dealing with colleagues unprofessionally. The respondent denied the allegations. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be faulted for Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of Impropr

CASE DIGEST: RAMON R. YAP, Petitioner, v. COMMISION ON AUDIT, Respondent. FACTS:  Ramon R. Yap is holder of a regular position of Department Manager of the National Development Company (NDC), a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter. He was appointed by the Board of Directors, Manila Gas Corporation (MGC), a subsidiary of NDC as Vice-President for Finance effective June 14, 1991while remaining as a regular employee of NDC. The additional employment entitled him to honoraria equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of his basic salary at NDC and various allowances attached to the office. In the course of the regular audit, the Corporate Auditor, MGC issued notices of disallowances against Mr. Ramon R. Yap which were predicated on the ground that appellants appointment to MGC in addition to his regular position as Department Manager III of NDC and the subsequent receipt of the questioned allowances and reimbursements from the former directly contravened the pros

[1] LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (This is issued to the executor.) [2] LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH WILL ANNEXED (This is issued to administrator when there is no executor named in will, or executor is incompetent, refuses trust or fails to give bond.) [3] LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION (This is issued to administrator in intestate proceedings.) Sec. 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for administration. Any person interested in a will may oppose in writing the issuance of letters testamentary to persons named as executors, and at the same time file petition for letters of administration with will annexed. Sagunsin v. Lindayag, 6 SCRA 874 The meaning of "interested person" is one who would be benefited by the estate (heir), or one who has a claim against the estate (creditor). Interest must be material and direct , not merely indirect or contingent. San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007 An interested person has

CASE DIGEST: WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JOHN STEEDMAN, MARK WEBSTER, and NOMINADA LANSANG, Petitioners, v. JOCELYN M. GALERA, Respondent. FACTS:  Petitioner is Jocelyn Galera (GALERA), an American citizen who was recruited from the United States of America by private respondent John Steedman, Chairman-WPP Worldwide and Chief Executive Officer of Mindshare, Co., a corporation based in Hong Kong, China, to work in the Philippines for private respondent WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. (WPP), a corporation registered and operating under the laws of Philippines. Employment of GALERA with private respondent WPP became effective on September 1, 1999 solely on the instruction of the CEO and upon signing of the contract, without any further action from the Board of Directors of private respondent WPP. Four months had passed when private respondent WPP filed before the Bureau of Immigration an application for petitioner GALERA to receive a working visa, wherein she was designated

The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in prosecution of the same. If the possessor of a movable loss or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. (Art. 559) “Presumptive title” - De Garcia v. CA, 345 SCRA 129 The owner cannot recover, even if he offers to reimburse, If the possessor had acquired it in good faith by purchase from a merchant’s store, or in fairs or markets in accordance with the Code of Commerce and special laws. (Art. 1505 [3])

CASE DIGEST: MIGUELA SANTUYO, CORAZON ZACARIAS, EUGENIA CINCO, ELIZABETH PERALES, SUSANA BELEDIANO, RUFINA TABINAS, LETICIA L. DELA ROSA, NENITA LINESES, EDITHA DELA RAMA, MARIBEL M. OLIVAR, LOEVEL MALAPAD, FLORENDA M. GONZALO, ELEANOR O. BUEN, EULALIA ABAGAO, LORECA MOCORRO, DIANA MAGDUA, LUZ RAGAY, LYDIA MONTE, CORNELIA BALTAZAR and DAISY MANGANTE, Petitioners, v. REMERCO GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, INC. and/or VICTORIA REYES. Respondents. FACTS:  KMM Kilusan (union) staged a strike against respondent Remerco Garments Manufacturing, Inc. (RGMI). Because the strike was subsequently declared illegal, all union officers were dismissed. Employees who wanted to sever their employment were paid separation pay while those who wanted to resume work were recalled on the condition that they would no longer be paid a daily rate but on a piece-rate basis. Without allowing RGMI to normalize its operations, the union filed a notice of strike. While the union and RGMI were undergoing conciliation in th

CASE DIGEST: RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDGE ROWENA NIEVES A. TAN FOR LATE REMITTANCE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF HER TERMINAL LEAVE TO PAY GSIS TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT OF HER SALARY LOAD TO SAID AGENCY. FACTS:  Judge Rowena Nieves A. Tan (Judge Tan), Presiding Judge of Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court of Balangiga, Eastern Samar, complained by Letter-Complaint of October 11, 2006 addressed to Atty. Eden Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), about the late remittance of her terminal leave pay to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to partially settle her salary loan therewith. It appears that in 2001, Judge Tan, then employed as a court attorney in this Court, obtained a P192,064 salary loan from the GSIS. On June 30, 2002, she resigned from the Court at which time she had paid the GSIS a total of P33,340.93. To settle her outstanding balance, she requested the Court to remit her te

CASE DIGEST: ALANGILAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by ALBERTO ROMULO, as Executive Secretary, and ARTHUR P. AUTEA, as Deputy Secretary; and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents. FACTS:  Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare land in Barangays Alangilan and Patay in Batangas City. Petitioner filed an Application and/or Petition for Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage of the Alangilan landholding with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). It averred that, in 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning ordinance (1982 Ordinance), which was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission. It further alleged that, on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City approved the City Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive