CORE: WON the SOJ has the power to review the findings
of the city prosecutor
The SOJ did not commit GAD when she
reversed the findings of the city prosecutor that there
was no probable cause for falsification against the
respondents.
The determination of probable cause is
essentially an executive function, lodged in the first place
on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary
investigation. The prosecutors ruling is reviewable by
the Secretary who, as the final determinative authority on
the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm
the prosecutors determination.
Here, the SOJ did not just merely give credence
to the questioned documents report and the petitioners
selfserving allegations. The SOJ made a holistic review
of the parties submitted pieces of evidence in ruling
that the expert evidence, the disclaimer of the petitioner
that he did not sign any promissory note, the lack of
proof of receipt of the proceeds of the loan, all tend to
prove that he did not execute the subject deeds. Also,
the finding in the assailed resolution that the credit line
of the petitioner
with Metrobank
is sufficient
consideration for him to have executed the deeds is
gratuitous and conjectural.
Hence, in exercising her power of review, the
findings of the SOJ are more in accord with the duty to
determine the existence of probable cause than the
findings of the city prosecutor. Thus, the SOJ did not
gravely abuse the exercise of her discretion in reversing
the findings of the city prosecutor.
Probable Cause: Probable cause pertains to facts and
circumstances sufficient to support a wellfounded belief
that a crime has been committed and the accused is
probably guilty thereof.
Elements of Crime Should be Presented: It is well
settled that in order to arrive at a finding of probable
cause, the elements of the crime charged should be
present. In determining these elements for purposes of
preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support
a prima facie case against the respondent are required,
not absolute certainty. Thus, probable cause implies
mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more
than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would
justify a conviction.
Elements of falsification of public documents:
(1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer
or employee who did not take advantage of his official
position;
(2) he committed any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and
(3) the falsification was committed in a public, official or
commercial document.
G.R. No. 189171. June 3, 2014
Edilberto L. Barcelona Vs. Dan Joel Lim and Richard
Tan
Matters
Not
vs.
Lack
of
Legal
Crisologo
should
be
joined
as
defendant
The
remedies
of
the
motion to set aside order
of default, motion for new
trial, and petition for relief
from
judgment
are
mutually exclusive, not
alternative or cumulative.
This
is
to
compel
defendants to remedy their
default at the earliest
possible
opportunity.
Depending on when the
default was discovered and
whether
a
default
judgment
was
already
rendered,
a
defendant
declared in default may
avail of only one of the
three remedies.
With a motion for new trial,
the defendant must file the
motion within the period
for taking an appeal or
within 15 days from notice
of the default judgment.
Although
a
default
judgment has already been
rendered, the filing of the
motion for new trial tolls
the reglementary period
of appeal, and the default
judgment
cannot
be
executed
against
the
defendant.
proven.
Similar to an appeal, a
petition for certiorari does
not allow the defendant to
present evidence on his or
her behalf. The defendant
can only argue that the
trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion in
declaring him or her in
default.
Interpleader;
CALL: WON the pending case for nullification of the deed
of dation in payment barred the RTC Makati from hearing
the interpleader case
CORE: WON the motion to dismiss the interpleader case
should be granted on the ground of litis pendentia
The pending nullification case did not bar the
RTC Makati from hearing the interpleader case.
Under Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the
ground of litis pendentia. For litis pendentia to exist,
there must be identity of parties, of the rights asserted
and of the reliefs prayed for.
In this case, the nullification of deed of dation
in payment case was filed by Lui Enterprises against the
PBCOM. The interpleader case was filed by Zuellig
Pharma against Lui Enterprises and the Philippine Bank of
Communications.
A
different
plaintiff
filed
the
interpleader case against Lui Enterprises and the PBCOM.
Thus, there is no identity of parties, and the first requisite
of litis pendentia is absent. Moreover, Lui Enterprises filed
the nullification of deed of dation in payment to recover
ownership of the leased premises. Zuellig Pharma filed
the interpleader case to extinguish its obligation to pay
rent. There is no identity of reliefs prayed for.
Since two requisites of litis pendentia are absent, the
nullification of deed of dation in payment case did not bar
the filing of the interpleader case. Consequently, the
motion to dismiss the interpleader case on the ground of
litis pendentia should be denied.
Interpleader Case Filed by a Lessee: An interpleader
complaint may be filed by a lessee against those who
have conflicting claims over the rent due for the property
leased. This remedy is for the lessee to protect him or her
from double vexation in respect of one liability. He or
she may file the interpleader case to extinguish his or her
obligation to pay rent, remove him or her from the
adverse claimants dispute, and compel the parties with
conflicting claims to litigate among themselves.
Vs.
Transunion
vs.
procedure
to
ensure
administration of justice.
an
orderly
and
speedy
To
merit
liberality,
petitioner
must
show
reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the
rules and must convince the Court that the outright
dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration
of substantial justice. x x x. The desired leniency cannot
be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for
such a procedural lapse.
The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice"
line is not some magic want that will automatically
compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural
rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have resulted in
prejudice to a partys substantial rights. Utter disregard
of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on
the policy of liberal construction.
Petitioner's plea that the rules be not strictly
applied so that the ends of justice will be served is not
meritorious. Petitioner had not shown any satisfactory
reason which would merit the relaxation of the rules.
Petitioner moved for motion of time to file his motion for
partial reconsideration alleging heavy volume of work
and the need to attend to other urgent matters in other
equally urgent cases, which cannot be considered as
exceptional circumstances to justify the non-observance
of the rules of procedure.
G.R. No. 201234. March 17, 2014
Heirs of Amada A. Zaulda, namely: Eleseo A.
Zaulda and Rodolfo A. Zaulda Vs. Isaac Z. Zaulda
Rule 42; Petition For Review From The RTC To The
CA; Motion For Extension Of Time; Exemption From
Delay
CALL: WON the petitioners were unreasonably deprived
of their right to be heard on the merits
CORE: WON the petitioners timely filed the motion for
extension of time to file petition for review
Yes, the petitioners were unreasonably
deprived of their right to be heard on the merits when the
CA dismissed their motion to extend the time for filing
the Petition for Review.
Under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount
of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for
costs before the expiration of the periond, the CA may
grant an additional period of 15 days only within which to
file the petition for review. One of the actions of the CA
on the petition is to dismiss it if it finds the same to be
prosecuted manifestly for delay.
Here, the petition for review before the CA was
filed within the additional fifteen (15) day period prayed
for in their motion for extension of time to file it, which
was filed on time by registered mail. Moreover, the record
shows that 1] the CA received the MOTEX of time to file
petition for review on September 13, 2010; 2] the CA
Reconstitution
Jurisdiction
of
the
Original
Copy
of
TCT;
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
G.R. No. 189176. March 19, 2014
Barry Lanier and Perlita Lanier Vs. People
Determination of Probable Cause; Doctrine of Noninterference; When Not Applicable; Judicial Review
of Decision of SOJ
CALL: WON the dismissal by the trial court of the motion
to withdraw Information based on the resolution of the
SOJ was proper
CORE: WON the SOJs findings are binding on the trial
court
No, the dismissal by the trial court of the
motion to withdraw Information based on the resolution
of the SOJ was not proper.
It is well-settled that courts of law are
precluded from disturbing the findings of public
prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or nonexistence of probable cause for the purpose of filing
criminal information. However, such courts of law are
required to evaluate such findings before proceeding
further with the trial.
Here, the RTC deferred to the finding of
probable cause by the Secretary of Justice without doing
its own independent evaluation.
Hence, when the trial courts Order rests
entirely on the assessment of the DOJ without doing its
own independent evaluation, the trial court effectively
abdicates its judicial power and refuses to perform a
positive duty enjoined by law. Thus, while the Secretary's
ruling is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.
CALL: WON the SOJ acted with GADALEJ
CORE: WON the courts may interfere with the findings of
the SOJ
Yes, the SOJ acted with GADALEJ when he
concluded that there was planting of evidence based on
the fact that the raiding team arrived ahead of the search
team.
It is well-settled that courts of law are
precluded from disturbing the findings of public
prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or nonexistence of probable cause for the purpose of filing
criminal information, unless such findings are tainted with
GADALEJ. Judicial review of the resolution of the SOJ is
limited to a determination of whether there has been a
GADALEJ considering that full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the executive branch in the
determination of probable cause during a preliminary
investigation. Courts are not empowered to substitute
their judgment for that of the executive branch; it may,
however, look into the question of whether such exercise
has been made in grave abuse of discretion.
of
the
bystanders
And
Probation
As
EVIDENCE
G.R. No. 183034. March 12, 2014
Sps. Fernando and Ma. Elena Santos Vs. Lolita
Alcazar, rep. by her Attorney-in-Fact Delfin Chua
Rule that Genuineness And Due Execution Of
Instrument Deemed Admitted Unless Adverse
Party Specifically Denies Them Under Oath, Applies
Only To The Parties; Defenses To Said Rule Barred
CALL: WON there is a need for proof of execution and
authenticity
CORE: Effect of admission of genuineness and due
execution of the instrument
There is no need for proof of execution and
authenticity with respect to the Acknowledgment in their
Answer.
By the admission of the genuineness and due
execution of a document is meant that the party whose
signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was
signed by another for him with his authority; that at the
time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as
set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that
the document was delivered; and that any formal
requisites required by law, such as a seal, an
acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are
waived by him. Defenses as that the signature is a
forgery; or that it was unauthorized; or that the party
charged signed the instrument in some other capacity
than that alleged in the pleading setting it out; or that it
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
G.R. No. 204029. June 4, 2014
Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo (substituted by her
heirs, except Emelinda R. Gualvez) and Salvador A.
Orosco Vs. Sps. Domingo and Emelinda Rebusquillo
Gualvez and the City Assessor of Legaspi City
Determination of Heirship In An Ordinary Civil
Action
CALL: WON the RTC erred in annulling the Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication on the basis of the petitioners'
allegation of the existence of the heirs of Eulalio
CORE: WON issues of heirship must be made in
administration or intestate proceedings, not in an
ordinary civil action
The RTC did not err when it annulled the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Avelina on the
basis of the petitioners' allegation of the existence of the
heirs of Eulalio.
It is well-settled that the declaration of heirship
must be made in a special proceeding, not in an
independent civil action. However, the SC has likewise
held that recourse to administration proceedings to
determine who the heirs are is sanctioned only if there is
a good and compelling reason for such recourse. The SC
allows exceptions to the rule requiring administration
proceedings as when the parties in the civil case already
presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship,
and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment upon
the issues it defined during the pre-trial.
In the present case, there appears to be only
one parcel of land being claimed by the contending
parties as the inheritance from Eulalio. It is more practical
to dispense with a separate special proceeding for the
determination of the status of petitioner Avelina as sole
heir of Eulalio, especially in light of the fact that
respondents spouses Gualvez admitted in court that they
knew for a fact that petitioner Avelina was not the sole
heir of Eulalio and that petitioner Salvador was one of the
other living heirs with rights over the subject land. As
confirmed by the RTC in its Decision, respondents have
stipulated and have thereby admitted the veracity of the
said facts during the pre-trial.
Hence, under the circumstances, there being
no compelling reason to still subject Eulalio's estate to
administration proceedings since a determination of
heirship could be achieved in the civil case filed by
petitioners, the RTC is correct in annulling the Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication filed by Avelina. Likewise, the trial court