PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

G.R. No. 214122, June 08, 2016 AUTOZENTRUM ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES MIAMAR A. BERNARDO AND GENARO F. BERNARDO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ASIAN CARMAKERS CORPORATION, AND BAYERISHE MOTOREN WERKE (BMW) A.G., Respondents. FACTS:  Spouses Bernardo bought a 2008 BMW 320i sports car, in the amount of P2,990,000, from petitioner Autozentrum, a domestic corporation and authorized dealer of BMW vehicles. On October 2009 until January 2011, Sps. Bernardo have recurrent visits to Petitioner Autozentrum due to malfunction and defect of different parts of said car. Spouses Bernardo then allege that Autozentrum violated Article 50(b) and (c), in relation to Article 97, of RA 7394, when it sold to them a defective and used car, instead of a brand new one. Autozentrum, however, claims that Spouses Bernardo failed to prove the elements of deceit or misrepresentation under Article 50, and injury under Article 97. The DTI and CA decided in favor of Sps. Bernardo and ordered Peti

G.R. No. 192957 September 29, 2014. EMMANUEL B. MORAN, JR., (Deceased), substituted by his widow, CONCORDIA V. MORAN, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA and PGA CARS, INC., Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) against PGA CARS for the product imperfections of a BMW car which it sold to complainant. CAO rendered a Decision in favor of complainant. Private respondent sought reconsideration but was denied. Thus, the private respondent appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the quasi-judicial agency designated by Article 165 of RA 7394 to entertain appeals from the adverse decisions and orders of the CAO. However, in a Resolution dated April 28, 2006, the DTI Secretary dismissed the appeal of the private respondent who then filed an appeal with the herein public respondent OP. The OP granted the appeal, rev

G.R. NO. 177056 September 18, 2009. THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Petitioner, v. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED, ROBINSON'S LAND CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA PLAZA CORPORATION and SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents. FACTS: Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la maintain and operate shopping malls in various locations in Metro Manila. Respondent SM Prime constructs, operates, and leases out commercial buildings and other structures. The shopping malls operated or leased out by respondents have parking facilities for all kinds of motor vehicles, either by way of parking spaces inside the mall buildings or in separate buildings and/or adjacent lots that are solely devoted for use as parking spaces. Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and SM Prime spent for the construction of their own parking facilities. Respondent Shangri-la is renting its parking facilities, consisting of land and building specifically used as parking spaces, which were constructed for the lessor's accou

G.R. No. 189655 April 13, 2011. AOWA ELECTRONIC PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, National Capital Region, Respondent.  FACTS: DTI-NCR has received at least 273 complaints against Aowa because of their deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales act. It is reported that, “A target customer is approached by Aowa’s representatives, usually in a mall and informs the former that he/she has won a gift or is to receive some giveaways. In certain cases, when the target customer expresses interest in the said "gift" or giveaway, Aowa’s representatives then verbally reveal that the same can only be claimed or received upon purchase of an additional product or products, which are represented to be of high quality. However, consumer complainants allege that such products are substantially priced.” Hence, DTI-NCR filed a Formal Charge against AOWA for violation of Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, praying that a Cease and Desist

G.R. No. 172835. December 13, 2007. AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PENNSWELL, INC. Respondent. FACTS:   Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of air transportation services. On the other hand, Respondent Pennswell, Inc. was organized to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial chemicals, solvents, and special lubricants. Both entered into a contract; Petitioner failed to pay its outstanding balance. Respondent filed a collection of sum of money, and Petitioner contended that its refusal is due to purported fraud of the ingredients of the object of their contract. Petitioner also prayed that Respondent be ordered to provide a detailed list of their ingredients. Respondent then raised the matter of “trade secret.” ISSUE:  Are the ingredients of Respondent’s products considered trade secrets and not subject to compulsory disclosure? RULING:  Yes, Respondent’s ingredients are considered trade secrets bec

G.R. Nos. L-10837-38. May 30, 1958. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY v. IYA ET AL.; IYA VS. VALINO ET AL. FACTS:   Spouses Valino executed two mortgages in favor of different mortgagees. The first was a chattel mortgage in favor of Associated Insurance covering the house. The second was a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya over the same house and lot. Spouses Valino failed to pay both of their obligations. Associated Insurance then foreclosed the property but was shocked of the existence of another mortgage over the house. Associated insurance then asked for preferential right over the said mortgaged house. In turn, Iya questioned the validity of the subject contract of the chattel mortgage. Hence, this petition. ISSUE:   May Associated Insurance rightfully demand for the exclusion of the house from the foreclosure of real estate mortgage by Iya? RULING :  No, because a mortgage creditor who purchases real properties at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale thereof by virtue of a

G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987. PRUDENTIAL BANK v. JUDGE PANIS FACTS:  Spouses Magcale executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Prudential Bank to secure a loan in the amount of Php70,000. Spouses Magcale then executed another real estate mortgage in securing a loan from the same in the amount of Php20,000. Spouses Magcale failed to pay their obligation and Prudential Bank then subjected the property to a public auction. Respondent Court then issued a decision rendering the contracts of real estate mortgage null and void. Petitioner filed an MR but was denied. Hence, this petition. ISSUE:  Whether a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another. RULING:  Yes, a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another because a building by itself maybe mortgaged upon the land on which it is erected. In Article 415, the building is separate and distinct from the land. It can onl

G.R. No. 37704. January 30, 1989. ERLINDA TALAN and YAP O. TECK alias ANTONIO YAP, Petitioners, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.  FACTS :  Erlinda Talan was engaged in the retail trade business, a sari-sari store. Her common-law husband is Antonio Yap, a Chinese national. They have been living together and have a child and another on the way. Talan’s sari-sari store eventually became general merchandise with the help of her common-law husband. Later, they a case was filed against them for violation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law because Yap was disqualified to engage in retail trade business but was allowed and permitted by Talan to directly or indirectly engage in the latter’s business. Hence this petition.  ISSUE :  Did Petitioners violate Retail Trade Nationalization Law? RULING :  Yes, Petitioners violated the Retail Trade Nationalization Law because Antonio Yap, a Chinese national, was also engaged in the retail trade business o

G.R. No. L-20209. May 19, 1966. TAN TIONG ENG alias KUONG LEONG, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE HON. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. FACTS :  Petitioners are Chinese citizens allegedly working as laborers in the public market in Pasay. Defendants ordered them to stop working there beginning May 1962, because of Republic Act No. 37 and the Department of Finance Circular No. 32. Judge Encarnacion then rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. However, defendants requested a new trial and or reconsideration. And then 32 Filipino stallholders of Pasay market moved to intervene, in an effort to bolster the stand of the city officials. And asserting that they "had reasons to believe that the plaintiffs in this case (Chinese) are, in truth, not helpers but capitalists of the Filipino stallholders employing them", they — the intervenors — seconded the petition for a new trial. The motion was granted, and a new trial began. Judge Rilloraza denied the peti

G.R. No. L-31935. January 22, 1980. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BABY NG alias NG KONG DING TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BABY NG alias NG KONG DING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant. FACTS :  This is an appeal stemming from a decision of the Court of First Instance (RTC) permitting the applicant for his naturalization. A decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance granting the petition of Baby Ng. The Republic through the Solicitor General questioned the naturalization of Baby Ng on the grounds that Petitioner had no lucrative income, petitioner’s children were not enrolled in this prescribed school, and violated the anti-alias law and the retail trade act. Hence this appeal. ISSUE :  Whether the Petitioner violated the Retail Trade Act for engaging in retail trade before he was naturalized. RULING :  No, Petitioner did not violate the Retail Trade Act for engaging in retail trade before he was naturalized. In Reta

G.R. No. L-8467. June 28, 1957. HASSARAM DIALDAS and LACHMI HASSARAM, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MARIANO PERDICES, as City Mayor of Dumaguete City, Respondent-Appellee. FACTS :  Petitioners are aliens engaged in retail business who have a store in Cebu City. Due to the failing business conditions obtained in Cebu City, they decided to transfer their business to Dumaguete City. After looking for a good location, Petitioners’ deadline for the payment of taxes was due however the City Treasurer of Dumaguete refused to let Petitioners pay the same, and because the City Mayor of Dumaguete was about to order the closing of Petitioners’ store in view of the nationalization bill. Petitioners then filed a petition praying for a clear declaration of their rights under the Retail Business Act and for prohibiting the City Mayor from issuing an order closing the store of the Petitioners. Hence this petition. ISSUE :  a. Whether aliens are allowed under RA 1180 to transfer their business to anothe

G.R. No. L-30964. May 9, 1988. SY CHIE JUNK SHOP and SY CHIE SENG, Petitioners, v. FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE FILIPINAS (FOITAF), ISMAEL CASIDSID, BIENVENIDO JAVIER, JOSE OBADO, JOSE MACATANGAY, RODOLFO RUBIO and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents. FACTS :  Petitioner Sy Chie Seng, the owner and proprietor of Sy Chie Junk Shop leased premises owned by Alejandro Garcia. Here, the respondent-workers work for the Petitioner until they were allegedly dismissed from their jobs because of their affiliation with the respondent union. Respondent-employees filed a case before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for unfair labor practices. Petitioner denied committing unfair labor practices and reasoned that they close their business due to repeated demands of the Garcia and by invoking the Nationalization of Retail Trade Act for prohibiting them from transferring their place of business. Hence this petition. ISSUE : Does the Nationalization of Reta

The legal maxim "Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sententia" (/aed proksamam abntasiydenz fayaet raleysh(iy)ow naysay impiydiyeytar sentensh(iy)a/) means that the relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context. (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 57, citing Brown vs. Brown, Del., 3 Terry 157, 29 A.2d 149,153.)