PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

En banc, voting 15-0, in the case of Asakapa v. Basakana (G.R. No. 119190, March 31, 2020), the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared unlawful and illegal all recitation questions in law school that cause confusion and panic among law students. According to the Supreme Court, extremely difficult law school recitation questions cause physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation , citing Article 2217 of Republic Act No. (RA) 386. Said the Court, there is no point in such mental and psychological torture if law schools truly aim quality education and hope to produce quality lawyers. In Asakapa v. Basakana, the petitioner is a law student who was made to stand in his criminal law class for almost two (2) hours due to his failure to answer basic recitation questions such as: What is a crime? What is a felony? What is an offense? What is culpa? What is dolo? Atty. Ma. Hera P. Magtanon

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES } CITY OF MANILA } SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I, JUAN X. DELA CRUZ , of legal age, single, Filipino and residing at 123 España, Manila do hereby name, constitute and appoint MR. PEDRO X. SANTOS , of legal age, single, Filipino and residing at 234 España, Manila, to be my true and lawful attorney-in-fact, for me, in my name and in my place and stead, to do the following acts: To appear in the 5th floor of the Malacañang Palace, Manila, to get and release an XYZ Bank check issued in my name as government medical assistance. However, this authority does not include the power to present said check for payment; HEREBY GIVING and GRANTING unto my said attorney-in-fact full powers and authority to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing authority; I HEREBY RATIFY and CONFIRM all that my said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Done this day, March 31, 2020. City of Manila,

In PBC v. Yeung (G.R. No. 179691, December 04, 2013), petitioner contends that there was no excess or surplus that needs to be returned to the respondent because her other outstanding obligations and those of her attorney-in-fact were paid out of the proceeds. The relevant provision, Section 4 of Rule 68 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, mandates that: Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. – The amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be ascertained by the court, or  if there be no such encumbrancers or  there be a balance or residue after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it . Thus, in the absence of any evidence showing that

A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018) An action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court; purpose; examples of actions in personam, enumerated. (Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, Feb. 28, 2018) An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing; any judgment therein is binding only up

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF A BALLPOINT PEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, JUAN X. DELA CRUZ , of legal age, single, Filipino and residing at 123 España, Manila, for and in consideration of TEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (Php10,000.00), receipt of which I hereby acknowledge, do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto PEDRO X. SANTOS , of legal age, single, Filipino and residing at 345 España, Manila, my ballpoint pen described as follows: Dong-A My Gel 0.5; Blue; and Serial number 123456789; I am the absolute owner of the above property, free from all liens and encumbrances. On this day March 31, 2020. (Signed) JUAN X. DELA CRUZ In the presence of: (Signed) JUAN JOSE X. RIZAL ; and (Signed) MARIA X. SANTOS . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES } CITY OF MANILA } S.S. Before me, NOTARY PUBLIC, personally appeared MR. JUAN X. DELA CRUZ whose name and signature appear above, exhibiting to me using his UMID No. 123345456 that he is the same person who caused

Section 30 of RA 7653 provides for the proceedings in the receivership and liquidation of banks and quasi-banks, the pertinent portions of which read: Section 30. Proceedings in Receivership and Liquidation. - Whenever, upon report of the head of the supervising or examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or quasi-bank: (a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the ordinary course of business: Provided, That this shall not include inability to pay caused by extraordinary demands induced by financial panic in the banking community; (b) has insufficient realizable assets, as determined by the Bangko Sentral, to meet its liabilities; or (c) cannot continue in business without involving probable losses to its depositors or creditors; or (d) has willfully violated a cease and desist order under Section 37 that has become final, involving acts or transactions which amount to fraud or a dissipation of the assets of the institution; in whi

March 30, 2020 MR. JUAN X. DELA CRUZ 123 Kanto Street, Barangay 123 City of Manila Dear Mr. Dela Cruz: I represent Mr. Pedro X. Santos from who you owe the total amount of FIVE MILLION PESOS (Php5,000,000.00), plus interest, evidenced by a promissory note date March 1, 2017. Mr. Santos informed me that you issued two XYZ Bank checks, each at TWO MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (Php2,500,000.00), dated March 15, 2020 and March 16, 2020. On March 17, 2020, Mr. Santos presented said checks for payment to XYZ Bank, Barangay 123 Manila Branch but both of them were dishonored for insufficient funds. Copies of the checks with the stamp of dishonor are hereto attached on Page 2. Hence, this is a FORMAL AND FINAL DEMAND upon you to make good the said checks within five (5) days from receipt hereof. Otherwise, we will see you in court. We trust that you will give this demand letter your preferential attention. Respectfully yours, ATTY. PROJECT X. JURISPRUDENCE 123 Bahay Stree

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 210188, February 03, 2014 ] MTM RESOURCES, INC. AND FRANCIOSA M. CASTILLO V. NENITA L. DIMAYUGA, JEFFREY MAGPANTAY, ROMEO B. ATIENZA, JR., GERARDO ESCALLA, ISIDORO M. ALVAREZ, JELLY MARIELLE P. MANGI, ERNALD A. CORDERO, MA. FATIMA L. ATO, ROMULO A. GONZAGA, PERMO MENDOZA, ROLANDO S. CUENCA, JR., ERVIN A. DOLOR, ISABELO P. TENASAS, JR., ROSSLYN P. RAMOS, RICARDO G. VILLACASTIN, JR., SUSUMU MURATA, JONEL CARANDANG, EMILIE P. VISCARA, JOEL A. CAPALIT, EBRAHIM G. DIN, RODRIGO G. RAMA, SUSAN A. LORETO, DHON F. AMARANTE, JOSE DOLOR, SIDNEY GRIMALDO, JOJIT DOROMAL BUENAFE, MENANDRO REYES, AND DONABREL SALVADOR. After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to  DENY  the instant petition and  AFFIRM  the June 28, 2013 Decision[1] and November 21, 2013 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127726 for failure of MTM Resources, Inc. and Franciosa M. Castillo (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in uphol

Here is quiz on the concept of JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER . Perfect score is 10 POINTS . To view the results, please click SUBMIT and then VIEW SCORES . In case you find errors in our quiz results, please send us a message at www.facebook.com/projectjuris or info@projectjurisprudence.com. FOR OTHER QUIZZES, PLEASE SCROLL BELOW THE QUIZ. Loading… TRY OTHER QUIZZES: [1] 10-item online quiz on TAX principles - Project Jurisprudence . [2] 20-item quiz in sales law (#1) - Project Jurisprudence . [3] 15-item quiz in family law. [4] 10-item quiz in obligations law. [5] 10-item quiz in evidence law . [6] 20-item quiz on Latin legal phrases . [7] 15-item quiz in political law . [8] Quiz on effectivity of law . [9] Remedial law quiz; 15 items . [10] Civil law, 20-item quiz on Article 3 and 4 . [11] Quiz on criminal law basics . [12] QUIZ: Articles 5, 6 of the Civil Code . [13] QUIZ on negotiability . [14] QUIZ: Insurance warranty . [15] QUIZ: Offer and acceptan

In Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus,[1] it was enunciated that the conditional settlement of the judgment award operates as a final satisfaction thereof which renders the case moot and academic.[2] This pronouncement was later clarified in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi,[3] where the Supreme Court explained that it ruled against the employer in Madjus because of the prejudice that the terms accompanying the conditional settlement of judgment would cause the employee, viz.: [T]he Court ruled against the employer because the conditional satisfaction of judgment signed by the parties was highly prejudicial to the employee . The agreement stated that the payment of the monetary award was without prejudice to the right of the employer to file a petition for certiorari and appeal, while the employee agreed that she would no longer file any complaint or prosecute any suit of action against the employer after receiving the payment.[4] In the Legaspi case

Republic of the Philippines ) City of Manila ) S.S. AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS I, JUAN X. DELA CRUZ , of legal age and a resident of 123 Kanto Street, Barangay 123, City of Manila, Philippines, under oath, avers that: I was issued a company identification (ID) card by my employer, ABC Corporation; I usually kept said ID in my bag on my way home or on my way to work; On January 15, 2020, my bag was robbed away from me while I was about to board a jeep on my way to work; and I am executing this, as required, to get replacement for said lost ID. Signed on January 16, 2020 in the City of Manila. (Signed) JUAN X. DELA CRUZ Affiant SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to me on January 17, 2020. Affiant showed to me his SSS ID with number 123-456-789. ATTY. PROJECT X. JURISPRUDENCE Notary Public for the City of Manila 123 Bahay Street, Barangay 345, City of Manila Notarial Commission No, 123, until December 31, 2020 IBP-Manila No. 123456; January 15, 2019 PTR-Manila No. 123

In any jurisdiction, in any republic and under any government, it is a recurring problem that the Government most of the time does not listen to the people. Fortunately, as most constitutions do, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines gives the people AT LEAST   FOUR REMEDIES , among other remedies,   to make that corporate body called government, and the officers and officials composing it, listen to their demands. In a democratic and a republican state such as the Philippines, it is very important for the Government to listen to the people as it is their representative and sovereignty resides in them. Cliche as it is but true that the Government is of the people, by the people and for the people. [1] FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Under Philippine jurisprudence, it is established that freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right to free speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger

As a rule, employment cannot be terminated by an employer without any just or authorized cause. No less than the 1987 Constitution in Section 3, Article 13 guarantees security of tenure for workers and because of this, an employee may only be terminated for just or authorized causes that must comply with the due process requirements mandated by law. Hence, employers are barred from arbitrarily removing their workers whenever and however they want. The law sets the valid grounds for termination as well as the proper procedure to take when terminating the services of an employee.[1] The validity of the dismissal of an employee hinges not only on the fact that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause, but also on the very manner of the dismissal itself. It is elementary that the termination of an employee must be effected in accordance with law. It is required that the employer furnish the employee with two written notices: (1) a written notice served on the employee specifying

Rate the following subjects or topics in law school depending on how much you love or hate them. 1 means " I HATE IT SO MUCH! " and 5 means " I SUPER LOVE IT! " Try to be as objective as possible by considering the following metrics: 1. How hard is it mentally to understand the topic/subject? 2. How much reading is needed to understand the topic/subject? 3. How relatable in real life is the topic/subject? Your responses can help other law students and those who are planning to enter law school to know what to expect. Thank you! <3 Loading…

For an employee's dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and (b) the employee must be afforded due process. This 2017 case of Japos v. FARM COOP explains the legal force and effect of an incomplete medical certificate in an employee's attempt to save himself from dismissal due to absenteeism. In a nutshell, the employee involved wanted to exculpate himself from termination from employment by showing a defective medical certificate. In the case of Japos v. FARM COOP (G.R. No. 208000. July 26, 2017), records indubitably showed that fired employee Japos incurred several absences without authority or permission from his immediate supervisor even before he was terminated from service in violation of FARMCoop's policy. Records likewise showed that FARMCoop was quite lenient and considerate to Japos as he was not penalized for his previous unauthorized absences despite its policy providing for the suspension and dismissal of its employee in case o

An action for reconveyance and an action for declaration of nullity of the free patent cannot be pursued simultaneously; the former recognizes the certificate of title issued pursuant to the free patent as indefeasible while the latter does not; they may, however, be pursued alternatively pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court on alternative causes of action or defenses. (Mayuga vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, Jan. 10, 2018) An action for reconveyance involving land that is titled pursuant to a free patent is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner or to one with a better title; as such, two facts must be alleged in the complaint and proved during the trial, namely: (1) the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed it in the concept of owner ; and (2) the defendant illegally divested him of ownership and dispossessed him of the land. (Mayuga vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, Jan. 10, 2018) Differences among

Accion reivindicatoria is an action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession; it is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership; the judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018) Accion reivindicatoria is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018)

Equitable title is defined as a title derived through a valid contract or relation, and based on recognized equitable principles, or the right in the party, to whom it belongs, to have the legal title transferred to him; in order that a plaintiff may draw to himself an equitable title, he must show that the one from whom he derives his right had himself a right to transfer. (Delos Reyes vs. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, G.R. No. 214587, Feb. 26, 2018) An accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot that receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens Title; ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code; registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Act does not vest or give title to the land, but merely confirms and, thereafter, protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. (Delos Reyes vs. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, G.R. No.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AS A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime; the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. (People vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. 215320, Feb. 28, 2018; People vs. Mat-an, G.R. No. 215720, Feb. 21, 2018) The conviction of the accused-appellant for murder is flawed because of the erroneous appreciation of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance; the presence of this circumstance in the commission of the crime was not sufficiently proven; it must be shown that the advantage of superior strength was purposely and consciously sought by the assailant. (People vs. Miraña, G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018)

In order to be liable for damages under the abuse of rights principle, the following requisites must concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another; in this case, the petitioners failed to substantiate the above requisites to justify the award of damages in their favor against PNB, who merely exercised its legal right as a creditor pursuant to R.A. No. 7202. (Van De Brug vs. Phil. Nat’l. Bank, G.R. No. 207004, June 06, 2018)

To be qualified for the monetary benefits, the seafarer is required to submit himself/herself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return to the Philippines, except when he is physically incapacitated to do so; the seafarer is likewise required to report regularly to the company-designated physician during the course of his treatment. (Mla. Shipmanagement & Manning, Inc. vs. Aninang, G.R. No. 217135, Jan. 31, 2018) When the seafarer suffers work-related illness during the term of his contract, the employer shall be liable to pay for: (1) the seafarer’s wages; (2) costs of medical treatment both in a foreign port and in the Philippines until the seafarer is declared fit to work, or the disability rating is established by the company-designated physician; (3) sickness allowance which shall not exceed 120 days; and (4) reimbursement of reasonable medicine, traveling, and accommodation expenses. (Mla. Shipmanage

Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public; notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document; it converts a private document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. (Gonzales vs. Atty. Bañares, A.C. No. 11396, June 20, 2018; Zarcilla vs. Atty. Quesada, Jr., A.C. No. 7186, March 13, 2018) Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such; it is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization; notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. (Orola vs. Atty. Baribar, A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018) Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested w

An agrarian dispute is any controversy relating to, among others, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture; here, the controversy raised squarely falls under that class of cases described under Par. 1.1, Sec. 1, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure; the specific elements of tenancy are sufficiently averred in the subject complaint: first , that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; second , that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; third , that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; fourth , that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; fifth , that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and sixth , that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. (Sps. Nolasco vs. Rural Bank of Pandi, Inc., G.R. No. 194455, June 27, 2018) The determination of whether a tribunal has subject matter jurisd

The burden of proving the existence of a lawful cause for ejectment of an agricultural tenant rests on respondent bank; co-ownership, however, does not appear to be one of the legislated causes for the lawful ejectment of an agricultural tenant; absent the conduct by the PARAD of the proceedings in the DARAB case and the resolution of said case on the merits, the assailed CA ruling risks judicially approving the summary and extrajudicial eviction of agricultural tenants; the PARAD had already gained a jurisdictional foothold in the DARAB case, and should have been allowed to exercise the agency expertise in resolving the issues and problems presented. (Sps. Nolasco vs. Rural Bank of Pandi, Inc., G.R. No. 194455, June 27, 2018)

The following are important Supreme Court decisions on the Bill of Rights. All cases cited below were promulgated in 2018. EQUAL PROTECTION Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed; it does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different; neither is it necessary that the classification be made with mathematical nicety. (H. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 228087, Jan. 24, 2018) Guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances; however, the concept of equal protection does not require a universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction; what it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. (H. Villarica Pawns

[1] BURDEN OF PROOF. It is a fundamental principle in this jurisdiction that the burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action; since the divorce was a defense raised by the accused, it is incumbent upon him to show that it was validly obtained in accordance with his wife’s country’s national law. (Sarto vs. People, G.R. No. 206284, Feb. 28, 2018) [2] HOW TO COMMIT BIGAMY.  The accused failed to prove his defense that he had the capacity to remarry when he contracted a subsequent marriage; his liability for bigamy is now beyond question. (Sarto vs. People, G.R. No. 206284, Feb. 28, 2018) [3] ELEMENTS OF BIGAMY.  For a person to be convicted of bigamy, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case of an absentee spouse, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the pro

The Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals clearly provide that a subsequent motion for reconsideration shall be deemed abandoned if the movant filed a petition for review or motion for extension of time to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court; while the Office of the Solicitor General can be faulted for filing a motion instead of a mere manifestation, it cannot be faulted for presuming that the Court of Appeals would follow its Internal Rules as a matter of course; Rule VI, Sec. 15 of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals is provided for precisely to prevent forum shopping. (Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Sps. Barbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 04, 2018)

In Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora (Air Philippines),[1] the Supreme Court elucidated that mere failure to attach legible copies does not ipso facto warrant the dismissal of a complaint or a petition, to wit: As a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed.  This rule, however, is not petrified .  As the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the appellate court to determine the necessity for copies of pleading and other documents. There are, however, guideposts it must follow.  First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abus

As early as in 1992, the requirement of a Master’s degree in the undergraduate program professor’s field of instruction has been in place, through DECS Order 92 (series of 1992, August 10, 1992) or the Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; Art. IX, Sec. 44, par. 1 (a) thereof provides that college faculty members must have a master’s degree in their field of instruction as a minimum qualification for teaching in a private educational institution and acquiring regular status therein; promulgated by the DECS in the exercise of its rule-making power as provided for under Sec. 70 of B.P. Blg. 232, otherwise known as the Education Act of 1982; University of the East v. Pepanio, cited; thus, when the CBA was executed between the parties in 2006, they had no right to include therein the provision relative to the acquisition of tenure by default, because it is contrary to, and thus violative of, the 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that was in effect at the t