PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

If the answer to the following four (4) questions is yes, the counterclaim is compulsory: Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?  Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?  Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the counterclaim? Is there any logical relation between the claim and counterclaim? The above is called the "logical relationship test" which was mentioned in the 2010 case of GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero (G.R. No. 158090). In this case, the Supreme Court held the following: Tested against the above-mentioned criteria, this Court agrees with the CA's view that petitioner's counterclaim for the recovery of the amount representing rentals collected by Fernando from the CMTC is permissive. The evidence needed by Fernando to cause the annulment of the bid award, deed of absolute sale and TCT is d

Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor.[1] Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay."[2] It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance. Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9), National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national identity, and deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the

Under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 96-2009, citing A.M. No. 04-2-04 SC, the payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims remains suspended effective September 21, 2004. The circular noted the confusion caused by the decision in Korea Technologies v. Lerma (G.R. No. 143581) and gave a clarification. In the Korea Technologies v. Lerma case, the Supreme Court stated that docket fees are required to be paid in compulsory counterclaims. This ruling has been deleted in a revised issuance. A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC (Re: Revised Upgrading Schedule of the Legal Fees in the Supreme Court and the Lower Courts under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court) The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator Committee on Legal Fees, to: (a) ADOPT and APPROVE the following proposed amendments to the Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1, Rule 141, Rules of Court, as amended: Section 2. Modes of Payment. — The filing fees shall be pai

Why do you think lawyers, as a group, have such a universal reputation for dishonesty?   Paige Andre-Hudson of De Funiak Springs, Fla., wrote: “Could it be because the group has a disproportionate number of dishonest members?” I replied: “I’ve laughed at ‘lawyer’ jokes myself, but when I look at the subject more objectively, I don’t find evidence that attorneys are any less honest than the members of other occupational groups. Maybe one of the reasons they’ve developed that reputation is that their professional ethics require them to go to extreme lengths to defend even the most reprehensible characters in society, and this behavior has received broad exposure since the advent of television in the courtroom. (Note that we never denounce lawyers who defend the best of us.) Even in less sensational appearances, we routinely see attorneys trying to cast each other as liars, opportunists, and worse. But because it’s part of the standard operating procedure, it doesn’t tell us much abou

A negative pregnant is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It is in effect an admission of the averment it is directed to.[1] A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.[2] While it is a denial in form, its substance actually has the effect of an admission because of a too literal denial of the allegation sought to be denied. This arises when the pleader merely repeats the allegations in a negative form. (Riano) If an allegation is not specifically d

Ultimate facts are essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. (G.R. No. L-19751, February 28, 1966) The following are examples of allegations that are NOT  ultimate facts: Evidentiary or immaterial facts; Legal conclusions, conclusions or inferences of facts from facts not stated, or incorrect inferences or conclusions from facts stated; Conclusions of law alleged in the complaint are not binding on the court; and The details of probative matter or particulars of evidence, statements of law, inferences and arguments. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair and reasonable, are mere conclusion of law. Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity, are mere conclusions of law; as are allegations that a c

The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the "ultimate facts", and the second, the "evidentiary facts." In Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo,[1] the term "ultimate facts" was defined and explained as follows: The term "ultimate facts" as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1963 ed., p. 213) Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of whic

The pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause/s of action is called a "complaint." (Section 3, Rule 6) Its functions are: To inform the defendant clearly and definitely of the claims made against him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at trial; To inform the defendant of all material facts on which the plaintiff relies to support his demand; To state the theory of a cause of action which forms the bases of plaintiff’s claim of liability (Tantuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, 1991); and To assist the court in deciding the case, especially via the facts alleged and the reliefs prayed for. A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action.[1] Like all other pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court,[2] the complaint shall contain in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim, omitting the statement

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, was a leading Supreme Court of the United States (US) copyright case cited to explain the idea-expression dichotomy. In Baker vs. Selden , the US Supreme Court held that only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright, not the idea itself. In that case, the plaintiff held the copyright of a book which expounded on a new accounting system he had developed. The publication illustrated blank forms of ledgers utilized in such a system. The defendant reproduced forms similar to those illustrated in the plaintiff’s copyrighted book. The following is the analysis of the US Supreme Court: "There is no doubt that a work on the subject of book-keeping, though only explanatory of well known systems, may be the subject of a copyright; but, then, it is claimed only as a book. But there is a clear distinction between the books, as such, and the art, which it is, intended to illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident that it require

After the fatal shooting in Quezon City of an ex-military man allegedly suffering from some mental challenge, many people have turned to the case of Nacnac v. People (G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012) to justify the policeman's act of shooting the former twice. Here is why reliance on the Nacnac case fails. The Nacnac case depends on the following five (5) circumstances that, in the mind of the Court, negated a conviction for the killing of the victim: The drunken state of the victim; The victim was also a police officer who was professionally trained at shooting; The warning shot fired by petitioner was ignored by the victim; A lawful order by petitioner was ignored by the victim; and The victim was known for his combative and drunken behavior. The facts surrounding the Nacnac case was differentiated by the Supreme Court from current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order i

Why should you buy Judge Marlo Campanilla's books on criminal law? Campanilla is an expert in criminal law and a celebrity author and lecturer in the field of crimes and penalties. He has earned enormous respect from law students and law professors because of his impeccable analyses and constructive criticisms of existing principles, theories and decisions. In fact, in his books, he predicted nearly 100% of the 2018 Bar examination on criminal law . Performance of duty.  Judge Marlo Campanilla (April 23, 2020). Is killing of a criminal suspect justified? www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/is-killing-of-a-criminal-suspect-justified/3335235209829359. Performance of duty to arrest a person is a justifying circumstance. In effecting an arrest, no violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (Section 2, Rule 113, Rules of Court) Shooting an offender wh

Pagiging homosexual ng asawa, pwede bang idahilan para mapawalang-bisa ang kasal? Ito ang pinagusapan ng Unang Hirit kasama ang mga taga-Malabon. Aired: July 19, 2013.

Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty. The difference between the two justifying circumstances is clear, as the requisites of self-defense and fulfillment of duty are different. Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite. The elements of self-defense are as follows: Unlawful Aggression; Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. On the other hand, the requisites of fulfillment of duty are: The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful

By invoking self-defense, the accused admits inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the victim's death, albeit under circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated him. With this admission, the burden of proof shifted to him to show that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking self-defense.[1] Considering that self-defense totally exonerates the accused from criminal responsibility, it is incumbent upon him who invokes the same to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of his life or personal safety. When successful, an otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.[2][3] Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if

According to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-60054), any lawyer worth his salt knows that quanta of proof and adjective rules vary depending on whether the cases to which they are meant to apply are criminal, civil or administrative in character. In criminal actions, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction; in civil actions and proceedings, preponderance of evidence, as support for a judgment; and in administrative cases, substantial evidence, as basis for adjudication. In criminal and civil actions, application of the Rules of Court is called for, with more or less strictness. In administrative proceedings, however, the technical rules of pleading and procedure, and of evidence, are not strictly adhered to; they generally apply only suppletorily; indeed, in agrarian disputes application of the Rules of Court is actually prohibited.[1] It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the determination of probable cause, and “probab

The Supreme Court found application of Articles 1181 and 1185 of the Civil Code find application in the case of Osmeña v. PSALM (G.R. No. 212686, October 05, 2016). The award of the NPPC-LLA and NPPC-LLA to TPVI further finds justification under Arts. 1181 and 1185 of the Civil Code, viz: Article 1181.  In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. xxx Article 1185. The condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time shall render the obligation effective  from the moment the time indicated has elapsed, or  if it has become evident that the event cannot occur . xxx The Supreme Court explained in another case, The Wellex Group, Inc. v. U-Land Airlines, Co., Ltd.[11] that, under Art. 1185, if an obligation is conditioned on the non-occurrence of a particular event at a determinate time, that obligation arises (a)

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:[1] "If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. "Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. "Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith." The aforesaid provision clearly states that the rule on double or multiple sales applies only when all the purchasers are in good faith. In detail, Art. 1544 requires that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout, i.e., in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buye

Section 70 of P.D. 1529[1] provides: Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of certificates of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed. The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title.  T he adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of the said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon fil

The death or retirement of any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. In San Buenaventura v. Migriño (A.M. No. P-08-2574, January 22, 2014), an investigation was completed and two recommendations were already given by the OCA pointing to the misdemeanor of respondent Migriño. In Gallo v. Cordero,[1] citing Zarate v. Judge Romanillos,[2] the Supreme Court held: The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implication ... If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leave

The Ombudsman, in furnishing Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents,  fully complied  with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Section 4, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, Administrative Order No. 7. Both the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of the complainant and affidavits of his supporting witnesses. Neither of these Rules require the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of his co-respondents.  The right of the respondent is only “to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant,”  as expressly stated in Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court unequivocally ruled in the Paderanga case that “Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules

Constitutional Law 1 (political law) is one of the most difficult subjects in law school. If you get AT LEAST 8 OUT OF 10 in this quiz, you probably won't have too much difficulty surviving this subject. 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 acceptance (contracts law) . [16] 10-ITEM QUIZ: PIERCING OF THE CORPORATE VEIL . [17] QUIZ: CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS . [18] QUIZ: JURISDICTION OF C

This is the story of Nilda V. Navales and Reynaldo Navales in the case of Navales v. Navales (G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008, 578 Phil. 826). Reynaldo Navales (Reynaldo) and Nilda Navales (Nilda) met in 1986 in a local bar where Nilda worked as a waitress. The two became lovers and Nilda quit her job, managed a boarding house owned by her uncle and studied Health Aide financed by Reynaldo. Upon learning that Nilda's uncle was prodding her to marry an American, Reynaldo, not wanting to lose her, asked her to marry him. This, despite his knowledge that Nilda was writing her penpals and was asking money from them and that she had an illegitimate son by a man whose identity she did not reveal to him. The two got married on December 29, 1988, before the Municipal Trial Court Judge of San Fernando, Cebu. Reynaldo claims that during the first year of their marriage, their relationship went well. Problems arose, however, when Nilda started selling RTWs and cosmetics, since she could no