PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Shari’ah courts are autonomous bodies which do not need to lean on civil courts. Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, in its Decision granting the consolidated petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by Annielyn Dela Cruz Maliga (Annielyn) and Dr. John O. Maliga (John). The petitions challenged the orders of the 5th Shari’ah District Court (SDC), Cotabato City dismissing their complaints involving contracts of loan with interest. The complaints were filed by Annielyn and John (collectively, petitioners) with the SDC following successive demands for payments by respondents Dimasurang Unte, Jr. (Unte) and Abraham N. Tingao and Bai Shor Tingao (Spouses Tingao) over loans contracted by Annielyn with the respondents. Pursuant to said loans, Annielyn had paid Unte PhP8,660,250 for interests alone, despite the principal amount of her loan being only PhP1,965,000. Annielyn had also paid Spouses Tingao PhP1,452,000 on interest alone desp

An assessment for deficiency taxes is not a prerequisite for collection of the taxpayer-accused’s civil liability for unpaid taxes in the criminal prosecution for tax law violations. Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, as it denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Joel C. Mendez and partly granting the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Mendez challenged the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) finding him guilty of violating the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC), while the OSG assailed the CTA’s non-imposition of civil liability on Mendez. Mendez is a single proprietor doing business under several trade names and businesses. In 2006, he was criminally charged for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC for (1) not filing his 2002 Income Tax Return (ITR) in the estimated amount of PhP1,522,152.14 and (2) willfully failing to supply correct and ac

Exercising its administrative supervision over all courts, the Supreme Court on Tuesday [November 14, 2023] issued guidelines governing the transfer and assumption of jurisdiction of the Taguig City courts over cases and crimes committed within Parcels 3 and 4, PSU-2031 of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation declared to be part of Taguig City.  This is in response to a letter from Taguig City Mayor Maria Laarni L. Cayetano, who requested that the transfer of jurisdiction to the Taguig City courts be set on October 16, 2023.  However, to enable the courts, the prosecution, the Public Attorneys Office, and other court users to prepare, the Supreme Court set the effectivity date for the transfer to January 1, 2024.  Hence, beginning January 1, 2024, all civil and criminal cases arising from the affected areas shall be filed in the courts of Taguig City. Criminal complaints related to crimes and offenses that transpired or were committed within the affected areas before January 1, 2024

The writ of continuing mandamus is a remedy available only in environmental cases and thus cannot be used to compel the performance of particular acts relating to the anti-illegal drug operations of the government. Thus held the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, dismissing the petition for mandamus filed by Anna May V. Baquirin, Mary Jane N. Real, Maria Lulu G. Reyes, Joan Dymphna G. Saniel, and Evalyn G. Ursua (collectively, petitioners). The petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus to compel then Philippine National Police (PNP) Director-General now Senator Ronald M. Dela Rosa, then Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chairperson Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon (now deceased), and then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II (collectively, respondents) to investigate and prosecute extrajudicial killings in connection with the Duterte administration’s anti-illegal drugs campaign. The petitio

As the party seeking recovery, the Republic has the burden of proving, through preponderance of evidence, allegations in civil cases filed to recover unlawfully acquired property or ill-gotten wealth. Thus reiterated the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, denying the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines. The petitions challenged the rulings of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the complaint for recovery and reconveyance of ill-gotten wealth brought by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Lucio Tan (Tan), former President Ferdinand   E.  Marcos (Marcos, Sr.), former   First   Lady   and   later   Senator Imelda R. Marcos (Imelda), and 23 other individuals (collectively, respondents). The complaint sought to recover ill-gotten wealth alleged to have been acquired through schemes and abuse of power of Marcos, Sr., Imelda, and Tan, resulting in their unjust enrichment as

The urgency of issuing a protection order is central to its purpose of protecting the aggrieved party from heightened acts of violence and harm. Nevertheless, respondents in a protection order are not denied due process as they are still apprised of the accusations against them and given the chance to explain. Thus ruled the Supreme Court in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by XXX. The petition challenged the validity of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act of 2003 (Anti-VAWC Act), in relation to the grant of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) in favor of XXX’s former partner, AAA, and their children, BBB and CCC. In 2007, AAA and her children filed before the RTC an Urgent Petition for Issuance of Ex-Parte Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and PPO. AAA alleged that XXX would often tell her how worthless she was, and th

With the enactment of the Architecture Act, only registered and licensed architects may prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents as listed under Section 302(4)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code. Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, granting the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP). The petitions challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision upholding the validity and constitutionality of Sections 302(3) and 302(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code of the Philippines (National Building Code). On April 10, 2004, Republic Act No. (RA) 9266 or the Architecture Act of 2002 took effect.

The Supreme Court has ordered a ship management company and its corporate officers to pay US$90,000 as total and permanent disability benefits to its seafarer employee who suffered an injury while playing basketball on board a ship during his free time. In a 21-page Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Court granted the petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Rosell R. Arguilles (Arguilles) which sought to annul and set aside the January 24, 2020 Decision and November 9, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The said issuances of the CA affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolution which, in turn, reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter in favor of Arguilles in a complaint for disability benefits against his former employer, respondents Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. (Wilhelmsen Manning), its principal Wilhelmsen Ship Management Ltd. (WSML), and Fausto R. Preysler, Jr. On December 26, 2016, Arguilles, employed as

While the Senate has the power to conduct legislative inquiries, it must observe the Constitutional right to due process of the persons appearing before such proceedings. Thus held the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, partly granting the petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Linconn Uy Ong (Ong) and Michael Yang Hong Ming (Yang). The petitions challenged the contempt and arrest orders issued against them by the Senate of the Philippines. In 2021, the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) conducted an investigation in aid of legislation pertaining to the Department of Health’s expenditures in relation to the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued subpoenas directing officers of Pharmally Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Pharmally), including Ong as Pharmally Board of Directors me

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 229451. February 10, 2021 ] ABNER P. SALONGA, PETITIONER, VS. SOLVANG PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR SOLVANG MARITIME AS AND VIRGILIO A. LOPEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N INTING, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on  Certiorari [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Abner P. Salonga (petitioner) seeking to set aside the Decision[2] dated September 15, 2015 and the Resolution[3] dated January 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA­G.R. SP No. 139319. The CA Decision partially granted the Petition for  Certiorari  (with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)[4] filed by Solvang Philippines, Inc. and/or Solvang Maritime As and Virgilio A. Lopez, Jr. (collectively, respondents), reducing the total and permanent disability benefits of US$60,000.00 awarded to petitioner by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 04-000322-14/NLRC NCR Case No. OFW (M

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 250147. February 10, 2021 ] LAUREANO CONCORDO, REPRESENTED BY HEREIN HELEN CONCORDO, ET AL., PETITIONER, VS. ERJOHN & ALMARK TRANSIT CORP., ET AL., RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N CARANDANG, J.: This appeal by  Certiorari [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court prays that the Decision[2] dated May 23, 2019 and the Resolution[3] dated October 2, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140194 be reversed and set aside. The petition disputes the reckoning date for the execution of the Decision[4] dated September 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division which ordered the reinstatement of petitioner employees to their work without loss of seniority rights. Factual antecedents in relation to the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioners On September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division rendered a Decision[5] dismissing the appeal on the Decision[6] dated November 19,