PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225480, August 30, 2016 ] COTABATO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE [COTELCO], DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ENGR. GODOFREDO B. HOMEZ V. JEANY H. GENZOLA, ANDY L. ANTIPUESTO, AND ANTONIO LADRA. The petitioner's manifestation dated July 5, 2016, stating that the petition for review on certiorari was mailed on June 30, 2016, and requesting that it be given an extension of thirty (30) days from July 5, 2016 within which to go to Cagayan de Oro City and secure the Certification of the attached annexes to the petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals; the petitioner's manifestation dated July 19, 2016, submitting a copy of the petition for review on certiorari with all certified true copies of all pleadings in relation to the case; and the petitioner's submission of compact disc containing the soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari, are all  NOTED;  the counsel for petitioner is hereby required to  COMPLY  within five (5)

In Delfino, Sr. v. Anasao, the Supreme Court held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with even when only one of the plaintiff-heirs, who had sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. The same liberality was likewise applied to the certification against forum shopping when the Court allowed the signature of only one of the petitioners because of the commonality of interest of all the parties with respect to the subject of the controversy. (G.R. No. 197486, 10 September 2014, citing Iglesia ni Cristo v. Judge Ponferrada 563 Phil.705, 2006)

In Agtarap v. Agtarap, the Supreme Court explained the extent of the jurisdiction of a probate or intestate court. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine wheth

In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the three elements of a cause of action must concur in the allegations therein: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G. R. No. 197380, 8 October 2014) The Supreme Court explained in Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran that the basic test in a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action is whether, assuming the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint, a valid judgment could be rendered in accordance with the relief demanded. As a corollary, only ultimate or essential and not evidentiary

THIRD DIVISION  [ G.R. No. 234835, January 23, 2019 ]  FELICIANO G. FERNANDEZ VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. This petition for review challenges the Decision[1] dated June 30, 2016 and the Resolution[2] dated October 5, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141855. The CA affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 137 of Makati City, finding Feliciano G. Fernandez (Fernandez) liable to pay Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) P230,503.61, plus legal interest imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid. Fernandez, a valued client of BPI, was issued a pre-approved BPI credit card with Customer Number 201003002902302.[3] Under the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of the BPI credit card, a finance charge of 3.25% is imposed on the unpaid balance after the due date of payment. A late payment charge of 6% is also added for every month that a client fails to pay on the due date indica

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225939, October 05, 2016 ] G.R. No. 225939 NURBERT M. SAHALI VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO REPRESENTED BY SIEGFRED L. LABANG. For the consideration of the Court is a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by Nurbert M. Sahali, assailing the Resolution dated April 27, 2016 and Order dated June 30, 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in Case No. 0MB- M-C-14-0157, entitled Field Investigation Unit, Office of the Ombudsman — Mindanao, represented by Siegfred L. Labang v. Nurbert M. Sahali, Municipal Mayor, Sherwina S. Juhaili, Municipal Human Resource Management Officer. The facts are as follows: In a letter dated July 11, 2011, Muhammad Suhaili wrote then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government Jesse Robredo alleging that: In accordance with President Aquino's "Daang Matuwid" advocacy, the undersigned and Concerned Citi

The 1987 Constitution created a new, independent Office of the Ombudsman. The existing Tanodbayan at the time[1] became the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution. While the composition of the independent Office of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution does not textually include the Special Prosecutor, the weight of the discussions on the unconstitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 ( The Ombudsman Act of 1989)  should  equally apply  to the Special Prosecutor on the basis of the legislative history of the Office of the Ombudsman as expounded in jurisprudence. ( G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014 ) Under the 1973 Constitution,[2] the legislature was mandated to create the Office of the Ombudsman, known as the Tanodbayan, with investigative and prosecutorial powers. Accordingly, on June 11, 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos enacted PD No. 1487.[3] Under PD No. 1486,[4] however, the “Chief Special Prosecutor” (CSP) was given the “exclusive authority” to

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214764, June 29, 2016 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NARDING METRILLO Y FATROSINIA. The accused-appellant, Narding Metrillo y Fatrosinia (Metrillo), challenges in this appeal[1] the Decision[2] dated May 31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRHC-04783, which affirmed the Joint Judgment[3] of conviction for two (2) counts of Qualified Rape rendered against him on November 17, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Criminal Case Nos. 6132-33-SPL. The 13-year-old victim, AAA,[4] testified that sometime in March 2004, while sleeping in their residence in San Pedro, Laguna, her father, Metrillo, pointed a knife at her side and right cheek. With his other hand, Metrillo removed her panty and short pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, she heard her father say "teka lalabasan na ako" and a white substance came out of his penis. On account of Metrillo's threat to harm her, she did

PENALIZING WAR CRIMES IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. In accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization, are held accountable therefor. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution. Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the H

What is the nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem? Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. Non-service and irregular service of summons may be a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party. What is the effect of lack of summons? The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction and renders null and void all subsequent proceedings and issuances in the actions from the order of default up to and including the judgment by default and the order of execution. However, lack of summons may be waived as when the defendant fails to make any seasonable objection to the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Who are the only persons allowed to serve summons? [1] Sheriff; [2] Sheriff’s deputy; or [3] Other proper court officers; or [

Actual delivery of a thing sold occurs when it is placed under the control and possession of the vendee. Pante claimed that he had been using the lot as a passageway, with the Church’s permission, since 1963. After purchasing the lot in 1992, he continued using it as a passageway until he was prevented by the spouses Rubi’s concrete fence over the lot in 1994. Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway after the 1992 sale in his favor was a clear assertion of his right of ownership that preceded the spouses Rubi’s claim of ownership. Delivery of a thing sold may also be made constructively . Article 1498 of the Civil Code states that: "Article 498. When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred." Under this provision, the sale in favor of Pante would have to be upheld since the contract exe

A usual dissenter who once called out fellow justices for emboldening the rise of an authoritarian, Justice Marvic Leonen tells new lawyers about the dangers of keeping silent and being complicit. It can be recalled that Leonen is the same justice who does not flinch when criticizing decisions of his fellow justices in the form of his powerful dissents. In the decision to uphold President Rodrigo Duterte's martial law, for example, Leonen said his colleagues' decision "enables the rise of an emboldened authoritarian." Read more: Lian Buan (2020). Leonen's speech vs complicity trends as SC battles doubts on its independence. @lianbuan. Published 11:57 PM, June 25, 2020. www.rappler.com/nation/264865-leonen-speech-complicity-trends-sc-battles-doubts-independence. Below is the transcript of Justice Marvic Leonen's full speech which he gave to the 2019 Bar passers in their recently held oath taking ceremony. [QUOTE STARTS HERE:]  Congratulations. You made it.

Atty. Jesus Falcis III responded to a pro-Duterte blogger's criticism of Vice President Leni Robredo's statement regarding a 3-day rule for warrants of arrest allegedly stated in the 1987 Constitution. Read more: Jesus Falcis (June 25, 2020). The 3-day maximum limit for detaining individuals without a warrant. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158027692988429. Below is Atty. Falcis III's answer to this this criticism which he posted on Facebook. The 3[-]day maximum limit for detaining individuals without a warrant that VP Leni mentions is a working theory flowing from an implied reading of the last paragraph of Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that: “During the suspension of the privilege of the writ (of habeas corpus), any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.” What this means is that EVEN WHEN the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended (that authorities

Catcalling is experienced by men and women every day on different streets of the Philippines. The ultimate question is why. Why do these people have to catcall? Is there satisfaction in doing this? Do they honestly think that a woman would be attracted to or fall in love with them if they catcall her? Questions above, of course, show how STUPID  catcall-ers are but this blog is not a venue to properly answer these questions. What can be properly discussed here, nevertheless, is the LEGALITY  of catcalling. The short explanation is it is ILLEGAL  and the law PUNISHES catcalling. In 2019, Republic Act No. (RA) 11313, known as the Safe Spaces Act, became law in the Philippines; it punishes misogynistic acts, sexist slurs, wolf-whistling, catcalling, intrusive gazing, cursing, and persistent telling of sexual jokes in public or online. Punishments include imprisonment or fines depending on the seriousness of the crime. Under RA 11313, it is declared as a policy that equality, security

A complaint is a pleading alleging a plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.[1] A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.[2] Absence of verification when required is not a jurisdictional defect. It is just a formal defect which can be waived.[3]The verification by a lawyer is sufficient.[4] An important component of a complaint or any initiatory pleading is the certificate of non-forum shopping. The rule requires that the plaintiff or principal party certifies under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading ass