Brief Case of Case Briefs

A case digest or a case brief is a written summary of the case. A case sometimes involves several issues. Digesting the same would help the student in separating one issue from another and understanding how the Court resolved the issues in the case. The student does not need to discuss all the issues decided in the case in his case digest. He only needs to focus on the relevant issue or the issue related to the subject that he is taking. A case digest may also serve as a useful study aid for class discussions and exams. A student who has a case digest does not need to go back to the case in order to remember what he has read.

---

Search Case Digest Here…

Search

• Hasegawa v.Kitamura2021-12-22
  Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: 1. Where can or should litigation be initiated? (Jurisdiction) 2. Which law will the court apply? (Choice of Law?) 3. Where can the resulting judgment be enforced? (Enforcement)
• Jimenez vs. Cañizares2021-10-21
  G.R. No. L-12790 – 109 Phil 273 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Grounds for Annulment of Marriage – Impotency Joel Jimenez and Remedios…
• People vs. Bandian2021-10-13
  PEOPLE vs. BANDIAN G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936 Infanticide, Article 12 Exempting Circumstances FACTS: At About 7 in the morning of January 31, 1936, Valentine Aguilar,…
• Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. COMELEC2021-10-13
  ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein  by its  Chair,  DANTON  REMOTO,  Petitioner,  versus-  COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,  Respondent. G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010, DEL CASTILLO,…
• Air Canada vs. CIR2021-10-12
  AIR CANADA, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R.  No.  169507,  SECOND DIVISION,  January 11,  2016,  LEONEN,  J. The Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of…
• PCA Case No 2013-19 AWARD: In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Between The Philippines and China2021-10-12
  FACTS: On 22 January 2013, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings against China in a dispute concerning their respective “maritime entitlements” and the legality of Chinese activities in…
• Magallona vs. Ermita2021-10-12
  PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA vs EDUARDO ERMITA G.R No.  187167,  July  16,  2011,  Carpio RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and…
• Lambino vs. COMELEC2021-10-12
  RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS v. COMELEC G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, CARPIO, J. Two essential elements must be…
• Santiago vs. COMELEC2021-10-12
  MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL ONGPIN v. Comelec, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO & CARMEN PEDROSA, as founding members of PIRMA G.R.  No.  127325,  March  19, …
• Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS2021-10-12
  MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL G.R.  No.  122156,  February 3,  1997,  BELLOSILLO,  J. Adhering to…
• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.2021-10-12
  REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, Respondents. G.R. No. 104768; July 21, 2003 En Banc Ponente: Carpio The…
• Pamatong vs. COMELEC2021-10-12
  Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections GR No. 161872 April 13, 2004 FACTS: When the petitioner, Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Presidency, the…
• Pamatong vs. COMELEC2021-10-12
  FACTS:  Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign…
• PLDT vs. NTC2021-10-12
  PLDT vs. NTC GR 88404, 18 October 1990; En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (J) Facts: On 22 June 1958, RA 2090 was enacted granting Felix Alberto & Co. (later…
• PLDT vs. NTC2021-10-12
  Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs National Telecommunications Commission190 SCRA 717 [GR No. 88404 October 18, 1990] Facts: On June 22, 1958, Republic Act No. 2090, was enacted…
• Marine Radio Communications vs. Reyes2021-10-12
  MARINE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES INC. vs. REYES Petitioners are self-described enterpreneurs. They provide ship to ship and shore to shore public marine coastal radio…
• Basco vs. PAGCor2021-10-12
  Basco vs Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation197 SCRA 52 GR No. 91649 May 14, 1991 Facts: A TV ad proudly announces: “The New PAGCOR – Responding Through Responsible…
• Basco vs. PAGCor2021-10-12
  G.R. No. 91649             May 14, 1991 ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ,petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), respondent.…
• Tondo Medical Center vs. CA2021-10-12
  Tondo Medical Center et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. 2007-07-17 | G.R. No. 167324 PETITIONERS: Tondo Medical Center Employees Association, et al., RESPONDENTS: The…
• Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals2021-10-12
  G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006 Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Parañaque City under Executive Order No.…
• Manila International Airport Authority vs. CA2021-10-12
  MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006 Facts: MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of…
• Badillo vs. Tayag2021-10-12
  GR No. 173976 April 3, 2003 The National Housing Authority (NHA), a government-owned and controlled corporation, is exempt from paying appellate docket fees when it sues or…
• Republic vs. Judge CFI of Rizal2021-10-12
  Republic vs Judge, Branch XV 99 SCRA 660 Petition: Instant petition for certiorari and mandamus Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines Respondent: Court of First Instance of Rizal,…
• NHA vs. Roxas2021-10-12
  National Housing Authority vs. Roxas GR. No. 171953, October 21, 2015 Facts: The NHA is in charged with the development of the Dagat-dagatan Development Project (project) situated…
• Tañada vs. Angara2021-10-12
  TANADA v. ANGARA G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997 FACTS: On April 5, 1994, respondent then DTI Sec. Rizalino Navarro signed the Final Act of the WTO…
• Manila Bankers Insurance vs. Aban2021-09-27
  G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN,Respondent FACTS : On July 3, 1993, Delia Sotero (Sotero) took out a…
• Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC2021-09-27
  G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.  G.R. NOS. 221698-700MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,…
• NFL vs. Eisma2021-09-26
  The  first  and  fundamental  duty  of  courts  is  to  apply  the  law.  Construction  and interpretation  come  only  after  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  application  is  impossible  or inadequate  without  them. Jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  in  a  judicial  proceeding  is  conferred  by  the sovereign  authority  which  organizes  the  court;  and  it  is  given  only  by  law.
• Caltex vs. Palomar2021-09-25
  Construction, verily, is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.
• People vs. Chavez (2019)2021-09-22
  In rape cases, if the woman is under twelve (12) years of age, proof of force or intimidation is not required to establish statutory rape. However, if the woman is twelve (12) years of age or over at the time she was violated, sexual intercourse through force, violence, intimidation or threat must be proven by the prosecution.
• People vs. Oropesa (2019)2021-09-22
  Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is, against the will of the female. Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must produce fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused.
• Marcos, Jr. vs. Robredo (2019)2021-09-22
  In determining the sufficiency of the allegations of an election protest, what is merely required is a statement of the ultimate facts forming the basis of the Protest.
• OCA vs. Pascual2021-09-17
  Office of the Court Administrator v. Pascual259 SCRA 604 FACTS: Sometime in February, 1993, a certain Ceferino Tigas wrote a letter, addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez of…
• Antonino vs. Register of Deeds2021-09-11
  Antonino v. Register of Deeds GR No. 185663 , June 20, 2012 FACTS:           Petitioner Remedios Antonino had been leasing since March 21, 1978…
• People vs. Garfin2021-09-11
  [G.R. No. 153176. March 29, 2004] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, In her capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 19, of the…
• D’ Armoured Security Agency vs. Orpia (2005)2021-03-24
  Labor Relations
• Carpio-Morales vs. CA (2015)2021-03-24
  Doctrine of Condonation
• Herrera vs. Mago (2020)2021-03-24
  Political and International Law | Local Government | Doctrine of Condonation | Abandonment of the Doctrine of Condonation
• St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC (1998)2021-03-23
  Case Brief, Case Digest, Labor Law, Labor Relations, Labor Law and Social Legislation, Jurisdiction
• Philtranco vs. BLR (1989)2021-03-23
  Case Brief, Case Digest, Labor Law, Labor Relations, Labor Law and Social Legislation
• San Miguel Corp Employees Union vs. Bersamira (1990)2021-03-23
  Labor Relations | Labor Dispute
• Royales vs. IAC (1984)2021-03-23
  Jurisdiction
• Gachon vs. Devera, Jr. (1997)2021-03-23
  Petition for Review – a is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review and make changes to the judgment of a lower court or administrative body. Mandatory Statutes – a statute that requires a course of action as opposed to merely permitting it. It is a statute which leaves nothing to the discretion of the court in respect of compliance with its terms. If not followed renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void. Typically found by the use of words such as “must”, “will” and “shall”.
• Blardony, Jr. vs. Coscolluela (1990)2021-03-23
  Case Digest | Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction
• Uy vs. Contreras (1994)2021-03-22
  Case Brief, Case Digest, Remedial Law, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction
• Ungria vs. CA (2011)2021-03-22
  Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction | Payment of Docket Fees
• Raymundo vs. CA (1992)2021-03-22
  In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first instance [now regional trial courts] would depend on the amount of the claim. 
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance [now regional trial courts].
• Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA (1990)2021-03-22
  Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction | Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
• Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (1968)2021-03-22
  A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question by laches, which is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Here, the Surety could have raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court, but it only did so after receiving the appellate court’s adverse decision. Hence, it is barred by laches.
• Mercado vs. Ubay (1990)2021-03-22
  Case Digest | Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction
• Dazon vs. Yap (2010)2021-03-22
  The primordial function of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) is the regulation of the real estate trade and business. Though the agency’s jurisdiction has been expanded by law, it has not grown to the extent of encompassing the conviction and punishment of criminals.
• Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation vs. Villa (2010)2021-03-21
  In the case of Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, et al. The court ruled that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. Respondents did not, in said motion, allege that their filing thereof was a special appearance for the purpose only to question the jurisdiction over their persons. Clearly, they had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court.
• Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation vs. Villa (2010)2021-03-21
  RAPID CITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.ORLANDO VILLA and LOURDES PAEZ-VILLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 184197 | February 11, 2010 | 612 SCRA 302 | Justice Carpio-Morales Remedial Law…
• Agravante vs. Patriarca (1990)2021-03-21
  1. REMEDIAL LAW; MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT; REQUISITES. — The omission in defendants’ motion for cancellation of the pre-trial scheduled on February 27, 1978 of a notice of hearing was not a mere formal defect, as defendants seem to imagine. The motion for cancellation or postponement was not one that could be granted by the Court as a matter of course, and thus be acted on ex parte. No party has a right to a postponement of a trial or hearing, or pre-trial; and his adversary has the right to oppose any move towards this end. A party or counsel desiring a postponement of a pre-trial or trial must comply with the requisites of motions in general set out in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, i.e., the motion shall be made in writing, shall state the grounds upon which it is based and if necessary be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers and notice thereof — specifying the date of hearing which is supposed to be specified by the movant himself — shall be served by the applicant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before said hearing, together with a copy of the motion and of any affidavits and other relevant papers. Such notice of hearing, it must be added, is essential. Its importance is underscored by the prohibition of action by the court on any motion which is not accompanied by proof of service thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected. And if the motion be grounded on illness of a party or counsel, the Rules further require an “affidavit that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial (or pre-trial) is indispensable and that the character of his illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable.”cralaw virtua1aw library 2. ID.; PRE-TRIAL SERVICE OF NOTICE ON A PARTY THROUGH HIS COUNSEL, PREFERRED. — The objection that notice of pre-trial was not served personally on the defendants as well as on their attorney is, in the premises, utterly without merit. Atty. Pacamarra did not protest against this defect in relation to the pre-trial settings on January 25 and again on February 27, 1978. If he believed that failure of notice to be a grave defect, he should have brought it to the Court’s attention forthwith, and the matter would have immediately been set aright. He did not do so. Moreover, this Court has already ruled that service of the notice of pre-trial on a party through his counsel is not only proper but is the preferred mode. 3. ID.; DEATH OF A PARTY IN A REAL ACTION; DOES NOT AFFECT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. — It is axiomatic that jurisdiction of the person of the plaintiff is acquired by the court by the filing of the complaint. The subsequent death of the plaintiff in a real action like the one at bar, does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction, all that is entailed in this eventuality being the substitution of the heirs for the deceased in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. That substitution is precisely what was done by the Court a quo. 4. ID.; JUDGMENTS; REMEDY AGAINST AN ORDER OF DEFAULT. — The remedy against an order of default is a motion to set it aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, to which shall be appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground, and another, denominated affidavit of merit, setting forth facts constituting the party’s meritorious defense or defenses.
• El Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca (1918)2021-03-21
  JURISDICTION, HOW ACQUIRED: Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective.
• El Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca (1918)2021-03-21
  Where the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure lives outside of the country and refuses to appear or otherwise submit himself to the authority of the court, the jurisdiction of the latter is limited to the mortgaged property, with respect to which jurisdiction of the court is based upon the fact that the property is located within the district and that the court, under the provisions of law applicable in such cases is vested with the power to subject property to the obligation created by the mortgage. In such case personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant is non-essential and in fact cannot be acquired.
• Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL vs. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao (2010)2021-03-21
  INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL, petitioner, vs. WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO, respondent. G.R. Nos. 174040-41 | September 22, 2010 | Second Division | Justice Peralta Remedial Law |…
• Insular Hotel Employees Union – NFL vs. Waterfront Insular Hotel (2010)2021-03-21
  INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL, petitioner, vs. WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO, respondent. G.R. Nos. 174040-41 | September 22, 2010 | Second Division | Justice Peralta Remedial Law |…
• Machado vs. Gatdula (2010)2021-03-21
  Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law and not by the parties’ action or conduct.

  View post to subscribe to site newsletter.

• BF Homes vs. MERALCO (2010)2021-03-21
  The ERC has original and exclusive jurisdiction under Rule 43(u) of the EPIRA over all cases contesting rates, fees, fines, and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of its powers, functions and responsibilities, and over all cases involving disputes between and among participants or players in the energy sector.
• Untitled2021-03-21
  ALLIED DOMECQ PHIL., INC., petitioner, vs.HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23; CLARK LIBERTY WAREHOUSE, INC., BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and/or DISTRICT…
• Home Guaranty vs. R-II Builders (2011)2021-03-19
  HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. R-II BUILDERS INC., and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondents. G.R. No. 192649 | March 9, 2011 | 652 SCRA 649 | First Division…
• Lucas vs. Lucas (2011)2021-03-19
  #CaseDigest | Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction
• Pe vs. IAC (1991)2021-03-19
  Case digest | Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction
• Sharruf vs. Bubla (1964)2021-03-19
  SAMUEL S. SHARRUF, petitioner, vs. FRANK BUBLA, ARSENIO SOLIDUM, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, respondents. G.R. No. L-17029 | September 30, 1964…
• Insular Savings Bank vs. Far East Bank (2006)2021-03-19
  INSULAR SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, vs. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent. G.R. NO. 141818 | June 22, 2006 | First Division | Decision | Justice Ynares-Santiago…
• Herrera vs. Barreto (1913)2021-03-19
  GODOFREDO B. HERRERA, as municipal president of Caloocan, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO BARRETTO, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, and CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, respondents. G.R. No. 8692 | September…
• Sunset View Condominium vs. Campos, Jr. (1981)2021-03-12
  Purchaser of a condominium unit becomes owner of the unit only upon full payment of its purchase price. By necessary implication, the “separate interest” in a condominium, which entitles the holder to become automatically a shareholder in the condominium corporation, as provided in Section 2 of the Condominium Act, can be no other than ownership of a unit. This is so because nobody can be a shareholder unless he is the owner of a unit and when he ceases to be the owner, he also ceases automatically to be a shareholder.
• Republic vs. Dela Vega Vergara (2015)2021-03-08
  Even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.
• Philippine Agila Satellite vs. Lichauco (2006)2021-03-08
  PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE INC. vs LICHAUCO G.R. No. 142362 (2006)Tinga, J.Immunity from Suit The doctrine of the state’s immunity from suit will not apply if the government…
• Atty. Alcantara vs. Atty. De Vera (2010)2021-02-27
  Legal Ethics Atty. Carmen Leonor Alcantara, Vicente Mercado, Severino Mercado and Spouses Jesus and Rosario Mercado vs. Atty. Eduardo De VeraA.C. No. 5859November 23, 2010 Facts: Rosario…
• Malabang vs. Benito (1969)2021-02-18
  An inquiry into the legal existence of a municipality is reserved to the State in a proceeding for quo warranto or other direct proceeding, and that only in a few exceptions may a private person exercise this function of government. But the rule disallowing collateral attacks applies only where the municipal corporation is at least a de facto corporations. 
The mere fact that the municipality was created or organized at a time when the statute had not been invalidated cannot conceivably make it a de facto corporation, as there is no other valid statute to give color of authority to its creation.
• Khe Hong Cheng vs. CA (2001)2021-02-18
  An accion pauliana accrues only when the creditor discovers that he has no other legal remedy for the satisfaction of his claim against the debtor other than an accion pauliana. The accion pauliana is an action of a last resort. For as long as the creditor still has a remedy at law for the enforcement of his claim against the debtor, the creditor will not have any cause of action against the creditor for rescission of the contracts entered into by and between the debtor and another person or persons. Indeed, an accion pauliana presupposes a judgment and the issuance by the trial court of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the judgment and the failure of the Sheriff to enforce and satisfy the judgment of the court. It presupposes that the creditor has exhausted the property of the debtor. 
• San Miguel Properties vs. Sps. Huang (2000)2021-02-18
  It is not the giving of earnest money , but the proof of the concurrence of all the essential elements of the contract of sale which establishes the existence of a perfected sale.
• Ang Ladlad LGBTQ vs. COMELEC2021-02-18
  ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010 FACTS: “Ang Ladlad” is an organization of people who identify themselves…
• State Prosecutors vs. Judge Muro (1994)2021-02-12
  STATE PROSECUTORS, complainants, vs.JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 | 236 SCRA 505, 19 September 1994 | En Banc…
• Revaldo vs. People (2009)2021-02-11
  Dura Lex Sed Lex
• Ty vs. People (2004)2021-02-08
  Vicky Ty was charged with seven (7) counts of violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). She issued seven (7) worthless checks in favor of Manila Doctors Hospital for the payment of the hospital bills of her mother and sister. Her primary defense was that she was compelled to issue such because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury. Among other grounds, she basically claimed exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear (par. 6, Art. 11 of RPC) and justifying circumstance of state of necessity (par. 4, Art. 11 of RPC). SC ruled in the negative for both claims. Ty hasn’t met the requirements under those circumstances. The decision of the RTC and CA was affirmed with modification as to the penalty.
• Torres vs. People (2017)2021-02-07
  Petitioner’s act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating and traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age. Petitioner, as an adult, should have exercised restraint and self-control rather than retaliate against a 14-year-old child.
• Medicard vs. CIR (2017)2021-02-07
  For purposes of determining the VAT liability of an HMO, the amounts earmarked for payment to unrelated third (3rd) party (or received as reimbursement for advance payment on behalf of another which do not redound to the benefit of the payor) should not be included in the computation of its gross receipts.
• Lee vs. RTC of Quezon City Branch 85 (2004)2021-02-07
  An heir can sell his right, interest, or participation in the property under administration under Art. 533 of the Civil Code which provides that possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption from the moment of death of the decedent. However, an heir can only alienate such portion of the estate that may be allotted to him in the division of the estate by the probate or intestate court after final adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall have been paid or the devisees or legatees shall have been given their shares. This means that an heir may only sell his ideal or undivided share in the estate, not any specific property therein.
• Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Development Company (2018)2021-02-07
  It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. “Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon a claim asserted therein — a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant.”
• Castro vs. Gregorio (2014)2021-02-07
  The policy of the law is clear. In order to maintain harmony, there must be a showing of notice and consent. This cannot be defeated by mere procedural devices. In all instances where it appears that a spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse and other legitimate children must be personally notified through personal service of summons. It is not enough that they be deemed notified through constructive service.
• People vs. Camano (1982)2021-02-07
  Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens individual resistance to evil thought and undermines will­-power making its victim a potential evildoer.
• DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Employees (2003)2021-02-07
  The Regional Executive Director of the DENR for Region XII issued a Memorandum directing the immediate transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal. The respondent employees assails this decision as without legal basis. The SC ruled otherwise. Applying the doctrine of qualified political agency, the power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be delegated to his cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department. The DENR Secretary can validly reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter ego, is presumed to be the acts of the President for the latter had not expressly repudiated the same.
• Blaquera vs. Alcala (1998)2021-02-07
  The President was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the respondents who granted incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the President, thereby resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources. In the view of the President, respondents did a mistake which had to be corrected. In so acting, the President exercised a constitutionally-protected prerogative. Considering, however, that all the parties here acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already received.
• CIR vs. Secretary of Justice (2018)2021-02-04
  Here, respondent filed a protest with the CIR to assail the tax assessment issued to respondent. For failure of the CIR to act within 180 days from submission of the supporting documents, respondent filed a petition for review before the CTA. Interestingly, the CIR filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that the CTA has no jurisdiction to resolve the said matter since the SOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes between the government and GOCCs. As a result, the CTA dismissed the petition. When the SOJ assumed jurisdiction over the petition for arbitration filed by the respondent, the CIR, completely changed its stand and claimed that the SOJ has no jurisdiction over the case.
This turnaround by the CIR cannot be countenanced. The CIR cannot invoke jurisdiction of the SOJ and then completely reject the same.
Nevertheless, the SOJ’s jurisdiction over tax disputes between the government and government-owned and controlled corporations has been finally settled by this Court in the recent case of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Since this case is a dispute between the CIR and respondent, a local water district, which is a GOCC pursuant to P.D. No. 198, also known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, clearly, the SOJ has jurisdiction to decide over the case.
• TIEZA vs. Global-V Builders (2018)2021-02-04
  From the foregoing, it is evident that for CIAC to acquire jurisdiction over a construction controversy, the parties to a dispute must be bound by an arbitration agreement in their contract or subsequently agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration, and that an arbitration clause in a construction contract or a submission to arbitration of a construction dispute shall be deemed an agreement to submit an existing or future controversy to CIAC’s jurisdiction.
In this case, the Court of Appeals found that there was an agreement to arbitrate in the General Conditions of Contract, particularly in Clause 20.2 thereof, which formed part of the MOAs dated September 6, 2007 (BEIP- Extension of Drainage Component System [Main Road and Access Road] Project) and February 29, 2008 (Perimeter Fence at Banaue Hotel Project), which contracts were procured through competitive bidding.
• Roldan vs. Spouses Barrios (2018)2021-02-03
  While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the court’s jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved. As foreclosure of mortgage is a real action, it is the assessed value of the property which determines the court’s jurisdiction. Considering that the assessed value of the mortgaged property is only P13,380.00, the RTC correctly found that the action falls within the jurisdiction of the first level court.
• Chailese Development Company vs. Dizon (2018)2021-02-03
  It is a basic rule in procedure that the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter as well as the concomitant nature of an action is determined by law and the allegations of the complaint, and is unaffected by the pleas or theories raised by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss.
• Sps. Sanchez vs. Divinagracia (2018)2021-02-03
  In the instant case, the Spouses Sanchez anchored their Complaint for Annulment of Judgment on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the tribunal to hear, try and decide a case and the lack thereof refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the action. Lack of jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction presupposes that the court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint because the law or the Constitution does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. On the one hand, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or respondent is acquired by voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant/respondent to the court, or by coercive process issued by the court to such party through service of summons. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for. Thus, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery upon all or some of the claims prayed therein is not essential. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law and not by agreement or consent of the parties. Neither does it depend upon the defenses of the defendant in his/her answer or in a motion to dismiss.
• Malabanan vs. Republic (2018)2021-02-03
  The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined from the allegations in the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in the answer or motion to dismiss; otherwise, jurisdiction becomes dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.
• Amoguis vs. Ballado (2018)2021-02-03
  Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be raised at any time in the proceedings, whether during trial or on appeal. The edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not an exception to the rule on jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case will not acquire jurisdiction because of estoppel. Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated as a waiver of a party’s right to raise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of equity. It is only when the circumstances in Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is appreciated.  The unique circumstances in Tijam are present in this case. Indeed, as the petitioners in this case belatedly argue, the Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint. However, under the doctrine in Tijam, petitioners cannot now raise lack of jurisdiction as they have waived their right to do so. Estoppel by laches has set in. Petitioners did not question the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court during trial and on appeal. It is only before this Court, 22 long years after the Complaint was filed, that petitioners raised the Regional Trial Court’s lack of jurisdiction.
• CIR vs. Covanta Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc. (2018)2021-02-03
  While tax amnesty is in the nature of a tax exemption, which is strictly construed against the taxpayer, the Court cannot disregard the plain text of R.A. No. 9480. The implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 9480, as embodied in Department of Finance (DOF) Department Order No. 29- 07, laid down the procedure for availing of the tax amnesty. Upon the taxpayer’s full compliance with these requirements, the taxpayer is immediately entitled to the enjoyment of the immunities and privileges of the tax amnesty program. But when: (a) the taxpayer fails to file a SALN and the Tax Amnesty Return; or (b) the net worth of the taxpayer in the SALN as of December 31, 2005 is proven to be understated to the extent of 30% or more, the taxpayer shall cease to enjoy these immunities and privileges. It is undisputed that CEPHI submitted all the documentary requirements for the tax amnesty program. It is evident from CEPHI’s original and amended SALN that the information statutorily mandated in R.A. No. 9480 were all reflected in its submission to the BIR. While the columns for Reference and Basis for Valuation were indeed left blank, CEPHI attached schedules to its SALN (Schedules 1 to 7), both original and amended, which provide the required information under R.A. No. 9480 and its implementing rules and regulations. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to prove that the amount of CEPHI’s net worth was understated.
• De Roca vs. Dabuyan (2018)2021-02-02
  “In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.” In short, substantive law outweighs procedural technicalities as in this case.
Indeed, where as here, there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice. It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.
Taking this to mind, the labor tribunals and the CA should have considered petitioner’s repeated pleas to scrutinize the facts and particularly the lease agreement executed by him and Oceanic, which would naturally exculpate him from liability as this would prove the absence of an employment relation between him and respondents. Instead, the case was determined on pure technicality which in labor disputes, is not necessarily sanctioned – given that proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are non-litigious in nature where they are encouraged to avail of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case without regard to technicalities of law or procedure.Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, though belated, should have been given due attention.
• Atty. Mane vs. Judge Belen (2008)2021-02-02
  An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which this Court administers, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in argumentum ad hominem.

The acts and statements of Judge Belen questioning the capability and credibility of Atty. Mane by sole reason of his alma mater is considered conduct unbecoming of a judge.
• Mateo vs. DAR (2017)2021-02-02
  While the Court recognizes the primacy of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in our judicial system, it bears emphasizing that the principle admits of exceptions, among which is when there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that irretrievably prejudices a complainant.
• Agad vs. Mabato (1968)2021-02-02
  Articles 1771 and 1773 of said Code provide: Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties; and attached to the public instrument
• Hung vs. BPI (2010)2021-02-01
  Clearly, petitioner has represented in his dealings with respondent that Guess? Footwear or B & R Footwear Distributors, Inc. is also B & R Sportswear Enterprises. For this reason, the more complete correction on the name of defendant should be from B & R Sportswear Distributor, Inc. to B & R Footwear Distributors, Inc. and Benny Hung. Petitioner is the proper defendant because his sole proprietorship B & R Sportswear Enterprises has no juridical personality apart from him. Again, the correction only confirms the voluntary correction already made by B & R Footwear Distributors, Inc. or Guess? Footwear which is also B & R Sportswear Enterprises. Correction of this formal defect is also allowed by Section 4, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.
• Boyer-Roxas vs. CA (1992)2021-02-01
  The respondent is a bona fide corporation. As such, it has a juridical personality of its own separate from the members composing it. There is no dispute that title over the questioned land where the Hidden Valley Springs Resort is located is registered in the name of the corporation. The records also show that the staff house being occupied by petitioner Rebecca Boyer-Roxas and the recreation hall which was later on converted into a residential house occupied by petitioner Guillermo Roxas are owned by the respondent corporation. Regarding properties owned by a corporation, we stated in the case of Stockholders of F. Guanzon and Sons, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of Manila, (6 SCRA 373 [1962]): Properties registered in the name of the corporation are owned by it as an entity separate and distinct from its members. While shares of stock constitute personal property, they do not represent property of the corporation. The corporation has property of its own which consists chiefly of real estate. A share of stock only typifies an aliquot part of the corporation’s property, or the right to share in its proceeds to that extent when distributed according to law and equity, but its holder is not the owner of any part of the capital of the corporation. Nor is he entitled to the possession of any definite portion of its property or assets. The stockholder is not a co-owner or tenant in common of the corporate property. The petitioners’ suggestion that the veil of the corporate fiction should be pierced is untenable. The separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded only when the corporation is used “as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice, or where necessary to achieve equity or when necessary for the protection of the creditors.” The circumstances in the present cases do not fall under any of the enumerated categories.

---

Case Digests in Constitutional Law here: https://lawiqlegal.wordpress.com/case-briefs/case-digests-in-constitutional-law/

---

Bill of Rights Case Brief Case Digest Case Doctrine Chain of Custody Civil Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Constitutional Law Corporation Law Criminal Law Delegation of Powers Doctrine of Separation of Powers Doctrines En Banc Evidence Executive Department Fulltext Judicial Department Judicial power Jurisdiction Labor Law Labor Law and Social Legislation Labor Relations Labor Standards Latin Terms Legal Ethics Legal Maxims Legal Maxims, Principles, Doctrines Legislative Department Leonen Marriage Mercantile Law Obligations and Contracts Persons and Family Political and International Law Political Law Principles Property Remedial Law State Immunity From Suit Statutory Construction Supreme Court Taxation The State