December 2014

Don So Hiong
1. G.R. No. 193670, December 03, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
VENERANDO DELA CRUZ Y SEBASTIAN, Accused-Appellant
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of custody - is the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. It eliminates
doubts concerning the proper preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti or
the shabu in this case. Marking of the seized shabu is the initial stage in the chain of custody in
buy-bust operations. As requisites, the marking must be made in the presence of the
apprehended offender and upon immediate confiscation, and this contemplates even marking
at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
2. G.R. No. 205136, December 02, 2014 - OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
PEREZ, J.
(Political Law) Election law; Discretion over Certificate of Candidacy; Valid Susbtitution- In
Cipriano v. Comelec,20 we ruled that the Comelec has no discretion to give or not to give due
couse to COCs. We emphasized that the duty of the Comelec to give due course to COCs filed in
due form is ministerial in character, and that whilethe Comelec may look into patent defects in
the COCs, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or
ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the Comelec.
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) provides for the procedure of
substitution of candidates, to wit:
Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. If after the last
day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited
political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate
who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political
party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with
the preceding sections not later than mid-day of Election Day of the election.

If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election
and mid-day of Election Day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors
in the political subdivision where he is candidate or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the
entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
3. A.C. No. 8103, December 03, 2014 - ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL
OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. RENATO C.
BAGAY, Respondent.

MENDOZA, J.
(Legal Ethics) Notarial Act; Notary Public- Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provides that a Notary Public refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under
these Rules. A notary publics secretary is obviously not commissioned to perform the official
acts of a notary public.
(Legal Ethics) Notarial Act; Responsibilities of Notary Public- Respondent cannot take refuge in
his claim that it was his secretarys act which he did not authorize. He is responsible for the acts
of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his
secretary in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully
aware that his secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature.
Such blatant negligence cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple
negligence. There is an inescapable likelihood that respondents flimsy excuse was a mere
afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him could be a conscious act of what his
secretary did.
(Legal Ethics) CPR; Practice of Law- Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires
lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Due to his
negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public, he allowed an
unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open despite his absence in the
country and with his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint.
4. G.R. No. 193385, December 01, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DATS
GANDAWALI Y GAPAS AND NOL PAGALAD Y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
DEL CASTILLO, J.
(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; Prosecution of Offenses- The essential requirements
for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu are: "(1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment therefor."13 Equally settled is the rule that "[t]he delivery of
the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction."14 Here, the Court is satisfied that the
prosecution discharged its burden of establishing all the aforesaid elements. The prosecution
positively identified appellants as the sellers of the seized substance which was later found to be
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; Strict compliance to procedure- the most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they
will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.19 As long as the evidentiary
value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict compliance of the requisites
under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded
5. A.M. No. P-13-3163 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3861-P], December 01, 2014 - MARCIDITO A.
MIRANDA, Complainant, v. ERNESTO G. RAYMUNDO, JR., SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL

COURT, BRANCH 74, TAGUIG CITY, Respondent.

PERALTA, J.
(Legal Ethics) Court Personnel; Sheriffs- Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of
justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions
become empty victories of the prevailing parties. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon
to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the courts writs
and processes and implementing its orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the
integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.14
(Legal Ethics) Court Personnel; Sheriffs; Simple Negligence- It is clear that despite the trial
court's numerous directives to the respondent sheriff to implement the writ, the same remained
unimplemented for more than four (4) years. In his Comment submitted before the OCA,
respondent sheriff failed to offer any credible explanation as to why he has not enforced the
writ all these years. There is no evidence presented to show that he exerted earnest efforts to
implement the writ. For failing to satisfactorily implement the writ, respondent sheriff displayed
conduct short of the stringent standards required of court employees. He is guilty of simple
neglect of duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task
expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference

6. A.C. No. 7687, December 03, 2014 - RAUL C. LANUZA AND REYNALDO C. RASING,
Complainants, v. ATTYS. FRANKIE O. MAGSALIN III AND PABLO R. CRUZ, Respondents.;
7. A.C. No.7688 - RAUL C. LANUZA AND REYNALDO C. RASING, Complainants, v. ATTYS. FRANKIE
O. MAGSALIN III, PETER ANDREW S. GO AND PABLO R. CRUZ, Respondents.

MENDOZA, J
(Legal Ethics) Disciplinary Actions; Burden of Proof- The burden of proof in disbarment and
suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary
power only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that
warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal
presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved.
An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in
accordance with his oath.
8. G.R. No. 179597, December 03, 2014 - IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE, Petitioner, v. HEIRS
OF BERNARDINO TAEZA, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
(Civil Law) Implied Trust- The Court held in the case of Aznar, that unlike in express trusts and
resulting implied trusts where a trustee cannot acquire by prescription any property entrusted
to him unless he repudiates the trust, in constructive implied trusts, the trustee may acquire the
property through prescription even if he does not repudiate the relationship. It is then

incumbent upon the beneficiary to bring an action for reconveyance before prescription bars
the same.
In Aznar, the Court explained the basis for the prescriptive period, to wit:
x x x under the present Civil Code, we find that just as an implied or constructive trust is an
offspring of the law, (Art. 1456, Civil Code)
Article 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force
of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes.
So is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the property and the title thereto in favor of the
true owner. In this context, and vis--vis prescription, Article 1144 of the Civil Code is applicable.
Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of
action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
(Civil Law) Implied Trust; Prescription - An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. A long line of
decisions of this Court, and of very recent vintage at that, illustrates this rule. Undoubtedly, it is
now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. It has also been
ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registration of the
deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property

9. A.M. No. P-11-2917, December 02, 2014 - MARIVIC C. VITOR, Complainant, v. CAROLINE
GRACE ZAFRA, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG
CITY, Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
(Political Law) Laws on Public Officers; Just Debts- The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Services defines "just debts" as those (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law, or (2)
claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.
(Political Law) Laws on Public Officers; Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude- Under
the Administrative Code of 1987, a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground
for disciplinary action. In that regard, the Uniform Rules on Administrative Casesin the Civil
Service states that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a grave offense and upon
the first offense, the penalty of dismissal must be meted out. It is clear, therefore, that Zafra

should be dismissed from the service for having been convicted by final judgment of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 violations. Verily, her criminal convictions evinced her absolute unfitness and
unworthiness to remain in the service of the Judiciary, a department of the Government that
demands from its officers and employees the highest degree of integrity and reputation.
10. G.R. No. 183161, December 03, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. AMALIO A.
MALLARI, Respondent.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; Non-Presentation of Informant- In People v. Ho

Chua, we said: The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug
cases. In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that "[p]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the
cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their
usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not
look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted,
their identities are kept secret." In any event, the testimony of the informant would be merely
corroborative.
(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; No prior surveillance conducted- There is no
requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be
undertaken especially when, as in this case, the policemen are accompanied to the scene by
their civilian informant. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment
or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. We have
held that when time is of [the] essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior
surveillance.
(Criminal Law) SPL; Dangerous Drugs Act; Buy-bust money was not dusted with ultraviolet
powder -The failure of the police officers to use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money is
not an indication that the buy-bust operation was a sham. "The use of initials to mark the
money used in [a] buy-bust operation has been accepted by this Court. In People v. Rivera, we
declared: It was x x x the prerogative of the prosecution to choose the manner of marking the
money to be used in the buy-bust operation, and the fact that it was not dusted with fluorescent
powder did not render the exhibit inadmissible. Indeed, the use of initials to mark the money
used in the buy-bust operation has been accepted by this Court in numerous cases.
11. G.R. No. 199886, December 03, 2014 - CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GABRIEL A.TORDESILLAS,
Petitioner, v. ALLAN RAPANAN AND MARY GINE TANGONAN, Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J
(Civil Law) Negligence- Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the
interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

(Civil Law) Quasi-Delict; Elements- Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that *w+hoever by act
or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is a quasi-delict. Under this provision, the elements necessary to establish a quasidelict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant
or by some person for whose acts the defendant must respond, was guilty; and (3) the
connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.13
12. G.R. No. 206162, December 10, 2014 - ALEX M. VALENCERINA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
MENDOZA, J
(Criminal Law) Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act; OffensesSection 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which provides as
Sec. 3. - Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative
or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(Criminal Law) Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act; Offenses; Elements- There are two ways
by which Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be violated first by causing undue injury to any
party, including the government and second, by giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an
accused may be charged under either mode or both. In the amended information, the
prosecution charged him for both. A perusal of the same simply yields no other conclusion that
Valencerina, together with the other accused, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 for *w+ilfully, unlawfully and criminally, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality,
participat[ing], or contribut[ing] to, the release or issuance of Surety Bond GIF NO. 029132 xxxx
hereby affording unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to Ecobel Land Incorporated
(Criminal Law) Corrupt practices of public officers- The corpus delicti of the crime is not
dependent upon whether a loan had been granted to Ecobel, but more on proving the fact of
giving unwarranted preference or benefit to another with evident bad faith, manifest partiality
or gross inexcusable negligence. It is sufficient that such fact has been established, as the
prosecution did in this case.
13. G.R. No. 192232, December 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE
ESTALIN PRODENCIADO, Accused-Appellant.

DEL CASTILLO, J.
(Criminal Law) Rape; Date of Commission- In rape cases, the date of commission is not an
essential element of the offense. Time and again, the Court has repeatedly held that it is not
incumbent upon the victim to establish the date when she was raped for purposes of convicting
the perpetrator. This is because *i+n rape cases, the date of commission is not an essential
element of the offense; what is material is its occurrence,19 which in this case, was sufficiently
established by AAA. AAAs failure to immediately report the rape incidents does not detract
from the fact that they were committed; neither does AAAs resumption of a normal life after
the incidents negate rape.
(Criminal Law) Rape; Failure to report - Prodenciado also finds fault in AAAs failure to report
the alleged rape incidents. He avers that if AAA was indeed sexually abused, she should have
wasted no time in reporting the matter to her mother, brothers and sisters, other relatives
and/or to the police considering that she was neither pushed against the wall nor under
Prodenciados watch 24 hours a day.
(Criminal Law) Rape; Medical report not controlling- This Court has repeatedly held that a
medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape, and no law
requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution thereof. The medical examination
of the victim or the presentation of the medical certificate is not essential to prove the
commission of rape as the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the
accused of the crime. The medical examination of the victim as well as the medical certificate is
merely corroborative in character.
(Criminal Law) Rape; Qualified Rape; Elements- Hence, the trial court should have also found
Prodenciado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape, not simple rape, under the now
prevailing provisions on rape cases which is Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Article 266-B
thereof. Pertinent portions of which provide:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
1)
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalty. - x x x
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
14. G.R. No. 190349, December 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
FRANCASIO DELFIN, Accused-Appellant.

DEL CASTILLO, J.
(Criminal Law) Evidence; Rape; Inconsistencies in the testimony- The inconsistencies in AAAs
statements are trivial matters that do not involve the essential elements of the crime. It has
been held that inconsistencies on matters of minor details do not detract from the actual fact
of rape. Besides, said inconsistencies cannot affect AAAs credibility especially so when the
RTC and the CA have already held that her testimony was straightforward, credible, and
spontaneous. The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court regarding the
credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect especially if affirmed by the CA.

15. G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
SHIRLEY A. CASIO, Accused-Appellant.
LEONEN, J.
(Criminal Law) Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
of 2003; Elements; Acts - The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its
definition under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, thus:
(1) The act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victims consent or knowledge, within or across national borders.
(2) The means used which include threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another; and
(3)The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes exploitation or the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs.
On January 28, 2013, Republic Act No. 1036464 was approved, otherwise known as the
Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012. Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 was
amended by Republic Act No. 10364 as follows:
SEC. 3. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9208 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victims consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of
force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose
of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or

other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the
purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for
exploitative purposes shall also be considered as trafficking in persons even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Emphasis supplied)
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to
include the following acts:
(1) The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders;
(2)The means used include by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs (Emphasis supplied)
(Criminal Law) Human Trafficking; Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense- The
victims consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means
employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or
deceptive means, a minors consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying
desperation that compels our women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that
society even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such hopelessness. We should continue
to strive for the best of our world, where our choices of human intimacies are real choices, and
not the last resort taken just to survive. Human intimacies enhance our best and closest
relationships. It serves as a foundation for two human beings to face lifes joys and challenges
while continually growing together with many shared experiences. The quality of our human
relationships defines the world that we create also for others.
Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB, therefore, to be trafficked, we affirm the text and
spirit of our laws. Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in
environments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings. The evidence and
the law compel us to affirm the conviction of accused in this case.
(Criminal Law) Human Trafficking; Entrapment- Time and again, this court has discussed the
difference between entrapment and instigation. In Chang v. People, this court explained that:
There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension
of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the
accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin

of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The
idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution.81
16. G.R. No. 208462, December 10, 2014 - SPOUSES CARLOS J. SUNTAY AND ROSARIO R.
SUNTAY, Petitioners, v. KEYSER MERCANTILE, INC., Respondent.
MENDOZA, J
(Civil Law) Res judicata - First, the defense of res judicata must fail. The doctrine of res judicata
is a fundamental principle of law which precludes parties from re-litigating issues actually
litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. Res judicata constituting bar by prior
judgment occurs when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a
judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
causes of action. The previous case instituted by Keyser in the HLURB was denied on appeal by
this Court based on lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the third requisite of res judicata is not present
because the previous case was not adjudicated on the merits as it was denied on jurisdictional
grounds.
(Civil Law) Res judicata; Forum shopping- There is no forum shopping either in this case. To
determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the elements of litis
pendentia must be present, or the final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in
another.19 Since there is no res judicata in this case, then there is no forum shopping either.
(Civil Law) Prescription- The defense of prescription is likewise unavailing. In Fulton Insurance
Company v. Manila Railroad Company, this Court ruled that the filing of the first action
interrupted the running of the period, and then declared that, at any rate, the second action
was filed within the balance of the remaining period. Applying Article 1155 of the New Civil
Code in that case, the interruption took place when the first action was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila. The interruption lasted during the pendency of the action until the order of
dismissal for alleged lack of jurisdiction became final.
(Civil Law) Levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior unregistered
sale - In the case of Uy v. Spouses Medina32 which dealt with essentially the same issues, the
Court wrote: Considering that the sale was not registered earlier, the right of petitioner over the
land became subordinate and subject to the preference created over the earlier annotated levy
in favor of Swift. The levy of execution registered and annotated on September 1, 1998 takes
precedence over the sale of the land to petitioner on February 16, 1997, despite the subsequent
registration on September 14, 1998 of the prior sale. Such preference in favor of the levy on
execution retroacts to the date of levy for to hold otherwise will render the preference nugatory
and meaningless.
xxx
The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior
unregistered sale. This result is a necessary consequence of the fact that the property involved

was duly covered by the Torrens system which works under the fundamental principle that
registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the
land.
The preference created by the levy on attachment is not diminished even by the subsequent
registration of the prior sale. This is so because an attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is
against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching creditor
acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except
the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the
property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owners debt.
The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment,
or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner
provided by law.

(Civil Law) Damages; Moral Damages- The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground
for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not
among the grounds for moral damages. Spouses Suntay failed to show a compelling reason to
warrant the award of moral damages aside from their bare allegations.
(Civil Law) Damages; Exemplary Damages- As to the award of exemplary damages, Article 2229
of the New Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.36 The claimant, however, must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages. In this case, because Spouses Suntay failed to prove their
entitlement to moral or compensatory damages, there could be no award of exemplary
damages.
17. G.R. No. 193108, December 10, 2014 - MARILYN VICTORIO-AQUINO, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC
PLANS, INC. AND MAMERTO A. MARCELO, JR. (COURT-APPOINTED REHABILITATION
RECEIVER OF PACIFIC PLANS, INC.), Respondents.
PERALTA, J.
(Remedial Law) Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation - Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC38 (Rehabilitation Rules), which took effect on January 16, 2009, embodying
the rehabilitation rules applicable to petitions for rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships
and associations pursuant to P.D. No. 902-A, as amended. Section 1, Rule 8 thereof
unequivocally states:
SEC. 1. Motion for Reconsideration. A party may file a motion for reconsideration of any
order issued by the court prior to the approval of the rehabilitation plan. No relief can be
extended to the party aggrieved by the courts order on the motion through a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Such order can only be elevated to the Court
of Appeals as an assigned error in the petition for review of the decision or order approving or
disapproving the rehabilitation plan.

An order issued after the approval of the rehabilitation plan can be reviewed only through a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 39
18. G.R. No. 193100, December 10, 2014 - SAMAR-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J
(Taxation) Required notice of nature, factual and legal bases of the subject deficiency tax
assessments- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes; A void assessment bears no valid
fruit. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed heedlessly
with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the
cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to present their
case and adduce supporting evidence. In the instant case, respondent has not been informed of
the basis of the estate tax liability. Without complying with the unequivocal mandate of first
informing the taxpayer of the governments claim, there can be no deprivation of property,
because no effective protest can be made. The haphazard shot at slapping an assessment,
supposedly based on estate taxations general provisions that are expected to be known by the
taxpayer, is utter chicanery. Even a cursory review of the preliminary assessment notice, as well
as the demand letter sent, reveals the lack of basis for not to mention the insufficiency of
the gross figures and details of the itemized deductions indicated in the notice and the letter.
This Court cannot countenance an assessment based on estimates that appear to have been
arbitrarily or capriciously arrived at. Although taxes are the lifeblood of the government, their
assessment and collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will
negate the very reason for government itself.
19. G.R. No. 209219, December 02, 2014 - BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(BCDA), Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN,
COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA AND COMMISSIONER ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE
COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.
REYES, J.
(Political Law) Grave abuse of discretion- An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
(Remedial Law) Petition for Certiorari- Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is
restricted only to truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial
body is wholly void. From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of
discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross.
(Political Law) Judgements of Constitutional Commissions- As the Court stressed in Veloso v.
Commission on Audit: It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of

administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the basis
of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they
are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but
also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that
would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the COA has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition questioning its rulings.
20. G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014 - EDELBERT C. UYBOCO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
VELASCO JR., J.
(Remedial Law) Findings of fact made by a trial court; Exceptions - Absent any clear showing of
abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts,
especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.
This rule admits of exceptions, as follows: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) where the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
(3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.
(Remedial Law) (Legal Ethics) Acts of counsel binds the client; Exceptions- We find that there is
no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan. We held in Gotesco
Properties, Inc. v. Moral: The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of
his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The basis is the tenet that an act performed by
counsel within the scope of a general or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client.
While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances
of a given case, there are exceptions recognized by this Court: (1) where reckless or gross
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will
result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of
justice so require.
21. A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014 - ERLINDA FOSTER, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAIME V.
AGTANG, Respondent.
PER CURIAM
(Legal Ethics) CPR- Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that *a+ lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It is well-established that a lawyers conduct
is not confined to the performance of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent
is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional and private
capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing fees for her
case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to feigned reasons such as

the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees. In
other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act customarily related to depravity and dishonesty.
He demanded the amount of P150,000.00 as filing fee, when in truth, the same amounted only
to P22,410.00.
(Legal Ethics) Fiduciary nature - Moreover, the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the
counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
collected or received for or from his client.28 Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific
purpose but not used for the purpose should be immediately returned. A lawyers failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.2
(Legal Ethics) CPR - Records reveal that he likewise violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR,
which states that *a+ lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. In his private capacity, he requested
from his client, not just one, but two loans of considerable amounts.
(Legal Ethics) Disbarment - Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member
of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as an attorney for a party without
authority. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional
or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
22. A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014 - CAROLINE CASTAEDA JIMENEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY.
EDGAR B. FRANCISCO, Respondent.
MENDOZA, J
(Legal Ethics) CPR; Rule 1- Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized
by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful. Unlawful conduct
does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to
include such element. To be dishonest means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or
betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and
straightforwardness while conduct that is deceitful means the proclivity for fraudulent and
deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the
true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.
Membership in the legal profession is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
law, but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
publics faith in the legal profession. To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect

the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is
imperative that they live by the law.
In the facts obtaining in this case, Atty. Francisco clearly violated the canons and his sworn duty.
He is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted to having allowed
his corporate client, Clarion, to actively misrepresent to the SEC, the significant matters
regarding its corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate shareholdings.
23. G.R. No. 207682, December 10, 2014 - CONRADO B. NICART, JR., AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR
OF LGU-EASTERN SAMAR, Petitioner, v. MA. JOSEFINA C. TITONG AND JOSELITO M.
ABRUGAR, SR., Respondents.
VELASCO JR., J
(Remedial Law) Moot and academic- A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be
of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground
of mootness.26 Whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any practical legal
effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced.
(Remedial Law) Suspension due to Judicial Courtesy- In this regard, the Court has, in several
cases, held that there are instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or
court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy.