Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 472 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Philippine Textile Research Institute vs. Court of Appeals (9th October 2019)	AK832138 922 SCRA 623 , 864 Phil. 993 , G.R. No. 223319 , G.R. No. 247736	E.A. Ramirez, a construction company, entered into a contract with PTRI for the rehabilitation of electrical facilities. Shortly after work began, E.A. Ramirez alleged that PTRI's consultant demanded a bribe, which E.A. Ramirez refused. Subsequently, E.A. Ramirez claimed to encounter various difficulties in completing the project, including frequent changes in instructions and rejection of their work. When E.A. Ramirez requested an extension, PTRI instead terminated the contract. E.A. Ramirez then filed a lawsuit against PTRI for breach of contract. PTRI sought to dismiss the case, citing state immunity and lack of jurisdiction. The case made its way through the court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.		Constitutional Law I
Ang Nars Party-List v. Executive Secretary (8th October 2019)	AK585185 G.R. No. 215746	The case arose after the issuance of Executive Order No. 811, which downgraded the entry-level salary of government nurses to Salary Grade 11, contrary to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173. Ang Nars Party-List and PSLINK filed the petition, asserting that the downgrade was unconstitutional and beyond the authority of the Executive.	The Supreme Court declared Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173 valid, and voided and declared unconstitutional the provisions of Joint Resolution No. 4 and Executive Order No. 811 that purported to amend or repeal Section 32. However, the Court refused to compel the government to implement Section 32 due to the absence of an appropriation law.	Statutory Construction
JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL (3rd September 2019)	AK852327 861 Phil. 388 , G.R. No. 217910	The case arose from petitioner Falcis's challenge to the Family Code's provisions (Articles 1 and 2) defining marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, which effectively prohibits same-sex marriage in the Philippines. Falcis, identifying as a homosexual man, sought judicial intervention to invalidate these provisions and related articles on grounds of alleged violations of fundamental constitutional rights, despite not having personally applied for and been denied a marriage license.	The Court held that a petition challenging the constitutionality of laws must satisfy the stringent requirements for judicial review, including the existence of an actual case or controversy and legal standing, neither of which petitioner Falcis possessed, thus warranting the dismissal of the petition without ruling on the substantive issue of the constitutionality of the Family Code's definition of marriage.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
People vs. Tulagan (12th March 2019)	AK362964 896 SCRA 307 , 849 Phil. 197 , G.R. No. 227363	The case arose from two separate incidents where the accused-appellant, Salvador Tulagan, sexually abused his nine-year-old neighbor, AAA. The first incident involved Tulagan inserting his finger into AAA's vagina (sexual assault), and the second involved Tulagan having sexual intercourse with AAA (statutory rape). These acts prompted the filing of criminal charges, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, necessitating a clarification of the complex interplay between different penal laws concerning child sexual abuse.	The Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for the Bench and Bar regarding the applicable laws, nomenclature of crimes, and imposable penalties for acts of lasciviousness, sexual assault, and rape, particularly when the victim is a minor, by reconciling R.A. No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) which amended the RPC, and R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Court held that Article 266-B of the RPC (imposing reclusion perpetua for rape) prevails over Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 in cases of sexual intercourse with a child 12 years of age or below 18, but for sexual assault against a child under 12, the penalty under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) applies if higher than the RPC penalty.	Criminal Law II Rape, Child Abuse
People vs. Noah (6th March 2019)	AK526523 895 SCRA 399 , 848 Phil. 680 , G.R. No. 228880	Lina Achieng Noah was apprehended at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 1 upon arrival from Kenya via Dubai. Customs Examiner Landicho became suspicious of her luggage, leading to a further inspection in an exclusion room. This inspection revealed packages of shabu concealed within a laptop bag inside her luggage. Noah claimed the luggage was given to her and denied knowledge of the drugs.	The Supreme Court held that Lina Achieng Noah is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally transporting dangerous drugs, affirming her conviction and life imprisonment sentence, as the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized shabu and proved all elements of the crime.	Criminal Law II
Zabal vs. Duterte (12th February 2019)	AK457180 846 Phil. 743 , G.R. No. 238467	Boracay Island, a prime tourist destination, suffered severe environmental degradation due to factors like inadequate sewage infrastructure, improper waste disposal, illegal structures, high tourist influx, and violations of environmental laws, leading the President to describe it as a "cesspool" and necessitating government intervention for rehabilitation.	Proclamation No. 475, ordering the temporary closure of Boracay Island for rehabilitation, is a valid exercise of the State's police power, reasonably necessary to address the environmental degradation and protect public health, safety, and the general welfare, and does not unconstitutionally impair the right to travel or the right to due process.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
AAA vs. People (28th November 2018)	AK706237 844 Phil. 213 , G.R. No. 229762	The petitioner, AAA, and the private complainant, BBB, were married for 19 years with two children. Petitioner worked abroad and sent money to BBB, who was a full-time housewife. BBB used this money to buy household items. The dispute arose from BBB incurring debts, using their television and refrigerator as collateral, which led to a heated argument and the petitioner's subsequent actions.	The act of a husband taking conjugal properties against his wife's will, accompanied by verbal and physical abuse, thereby causing her mental or emotional anguish, constitutes psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262; the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not applicable if the victim-wife committed no unlawful act sufficient to produce such a state of mind in the offender.	Criminal Law II VAWC
People vs. Bandojo, et al. (17th October 2018)	AK427547 842 Phil. 511 , G.R. No. 234161	The case arose from the recruitment of a 17-year-old girl, AAA, into prostitution due to her family's financial difficulties. Accused-appellant Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto initially offered AAA "rakets" (slang for paid sexual encounters). AAA eventually agreed due to financial need. Separately, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information about a Facebook account, "Under One Roof," allegedly offering sexual services of minors, leading them to accused-appellant Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. An entrapment operation was planned involving both accused-appellants and AAA.	The conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 is affirmed when all elements of the crime are established, particularly the recruitment of a minor for prostitution; the victim's minority automatically qualifies the offense, and the consent of the minor victim or the accused's lack of knowledge of the victim's minority is not a defense.	Criminal Law II Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
People vs. Suico (10th September 2018)	AK454553 880 SCRA 32 , 840 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 229940	Police officers set up a checkpoint for a "no plate, no travel" policy based on information about a person transporting marijuana on a specific motorcycle. Jimboy Suico, matching the description, approached the checkpoint and attempted to evade it, leading to his arrest and the discovery of marijuana in his backpack and sack.	The warrantless arrest and seizure of marijuana from Jimboy Suico were valid as incidental to a lawful arrest based on probable cause. The prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, thus proving the corpus delicti and the appellant's guilt for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.	Criminal Law II
People vs. Romy Lim y Miranda (4th September 2018)	AK331437 839 Phil. 598 , G.R. No. 231989	Following a tip from a confidential informant (CI) regarding alleged drug selling activities by "Romy" in Cagayan de Oro City, agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office X planned and executed a buy-bust operation targeting the accused-appellant, Romy Lim y Miranda, at his residence.	The conviction of Romy Lim y Miranda is reversed and set aside; he is acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 concerning the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, specifically the absence of required insulating witnesses during inventory and the lack of justifiable grounds for such non-compliance, thereby failing to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.	Criminal Law II
Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision Dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno) (17th July 2018)	AK333299 836 Phil. 166 , A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC	The administrative case originated as an offshoot of the quo warranto proceedings (G.R. No. 237428) filed by the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the position. Prior to the quo warranto case, an impeachment complaint had also been filed against her in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of both the impeachment and quo warranto matters, the Court observed that Sereno engaged in numerous public appearances and statements regarding the cases.	Lawyers, including Justices, remain bound by the high standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct even when acting as litigants in their own cases; they cannot segregate their personality and must always maintain respect for the courts, refrain from actions that undermine judicial integrity or influence proceedings (including observing the sub judice rule), and such ethical violations are subject to administrative discipline separate from contempt proceedings and the "clear and present danger" test.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Manalo (24th April 2018)	AK948563 862 SCRA 580 , G.R. No. 221029	Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, married a Japanese national. She later obtained a divorce decree in Japan and filed a petition in the Philippines for the recognition of the divorce and the cancellation of her marriage record. The lower court denied her petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.	Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who has obtained a valid divorce decree abroad against a foreign spouse to remarry, provided the divorce is valid under the laws of the foreign country.	Legal Research and Writing
People vs. Tomawis (18th April 2018)	AK721106 862 SCRA 131 , 830 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. 228890	This is a criminal case involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The central issue revolves around the procedural compliance of law enforcement in handling seized drug evidence and protecting the accused’s rights within the context of the anti-drug campaign.	The Supreme Court acquitted Basher Tomawis, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, thus failing to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal drug sale.	Criminal Law II
Genuino vs. De Lima (17th April 2018)	AK023987 829 Phil. 691 , G.R. No. 197930 , G.R. No. 199034 , G.R. No. 199046	Prior to 2010, the DOJ issued Circular No. 17 (1998) governing HDOs and Circular No. 18 (2007) governing WLOs for persons with cases pending preliminary investigation or review. In May 2010, Acting DOJ Secretary Agra issued DOJ Circular No. 41, consolidating and revising the rules on HDOs, WLOs, and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), expressly repealing the previous circulars. Subsequently, criminal complaints for plunder, malversation, graft, and electoral sabotage were filed against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, and former PAGCOR officials led by Efraim Genuino, leading to the issuance of WLOs and an HDO against them under the authority of DOJ Circular No. 41 by then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima.	Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010, is unconstitutional because the DOJ has no authority under the Constitution or any existing law, including the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292), to issue an administrative circular that restricts the fundamental constitutional right to travel by creating mechanisms like Watchlist Orders (WLOs) and Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) based solely on the pendency of a preliminary investigation.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
Leviste Management System, Inc. vs. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc (4th April 2018)	AK149294 829 Phil. 176 , 860 SCRA 355 , G.R. No. 199353	Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. owns and operates a condominium building. Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) owned Concession 3, a unit within the building. LEMANS sought to build Concession 4 on the roof deck above Concession 3. Legaspi Towers objected, arguing the construction was illegal as it violated the Master Deed and Condominium Act and was built without proper approvals. LEMANS claimed ownership of the airspace and good faith in the construction, seeking application of Article 448 of the Civil Code.	Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding builders in good faith is not applicable in condominium settings governed by the Condominium Act, Master Deed, and By-Laws. Condominium corporations, acting through their Board of Directors, have the right to abate constructions violating the Master Deed and By-Laws, and unit owners cannot unilaterally expand their units onto common areas.	Property and Land Law
Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen (14th March 2018)	AK317975 859 SCRA 271 , 828 Phil. 336 , G.R. No. 223451	Petitioner, Senator Trillanes, initiated a Senate investigation (P.S. Resolution No. 826) into alleged overpricing of Makati City infrastructure projects involving former VP Binay. During a hearing, former Makati Vice Mayor Mercado testified about the "Hacienda Binay," a large estate in Batangas allegedly owned by VP Binay. Private respondent Antonio Tiu subsequently claimed ownership of a portion of the estate through his company, Sunchamp Real Estate Corporation. Following Tiu's testimony and presentation of an agreement before the Senate Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee, Senator Trillanes made statements to the media describing Tiu as a "front," "nominee," or "dummy" for VP Binay regarding the estate.	Parliamentary immunity under the "speech or debate" clause (Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution) protects only speeches, debates, and utterances made by members of Congress in the performance of their official legislative functions within Congress or its committees, and does not extend to statements made outside of congressional sessions or hearings, such as interviews with the media.	Civil Procedure I Constitutional Law I Motion
Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S. Mariano vs. City of Naga (12th March 2018)	AK791996 931 Phil. 369 , 858 SCRA 179 , G.R. No. 197743	In 1954, City Heights Subdivision offered to donate 5 hectares of land to the City of Naga for the City Hall, conditional on the subdivision being awarded the construction contract. The Municipal Board accepted the donation, and the City took possession and built the City Hall and other government offices. However, the construction contract was awarded to a different contractor. The landowners and their heirs later demanded the return of the property, arguing the condition for donation was not met, and the donation was not properly executed.	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' Amended Decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision, as modified. It ordered the City of Naga to vacate the subject property, peacefully surrender possession to the petitioners, pay a monthly rental of PHP 2,500,000 (later modified to PHP 75,000 for attorney's fees), and recognized that the donation was void and the petitioners had a better right to possession based on their Torrens title.	Property and Land Law
Osorio vs. Navera (26th February 2018)	AK626610 856 SCRA 435 , 826 Phil. 643 , G.R. No. 223272	The case stems from the alleged kidnapping of two University of the Philippines students, Karen E. Empeño and Sherlyn T. Cadapan, by military personnel including SSgt. Osorio and Major General Jovito Palparan. The victims were reportedly abducted from a house in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and detained in various military facilities from June 2006 to July 2007, resulting in their continuing disappearance.	The Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court properly took cognizance of the kidnapping case against SSgt. Osorio, and his detention was by virtue of a valid judicial process. The remedy of habeas corpus was deemed inappropriate as the restraint had become legal.	Criminal Law II
Melgar vs. People (14th February 2018)	AK366329 826 Phil. 177 , G.R. No. 223477	The case arose from a romantic relationship between petitioner Celso Melgar and AAA, which resulted in the birth of their illegitimate child, BBB, in 1995. Melgar acknowledged paternity but later stopped providing financial support when BBB was about one year old after his relationship with AAA soured due to his affair with another woman. This led AAA to file a case for support, which was granted, but Melgar allegedly continued to refuse to provide support, prompting the filing of the criminal case for economic abuse under RA 9262.	The act of denying financial support to a child, by itself, constitutes economic abuse under Section 5(e) of RA 9262 and is specifically penalized therein, even without proof of mental or emotional anguish which is an element for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the same Act. An accused charged under Section 5(i) can be convicted under Section 5(e) by virtue of the variance doctrine if the deprivation of support is proven.	Criminal Law II VAWC
People vs. Amarela (17th January 2018)	AK555521 852 SCRA 54 , 823 Phil. 1188 , G.R. Nos. 225642-43	The case arose from allegations that Juvy Amarela raped AAA on February 10, 2009, and that Junard Racho raped her hours later, in the early morning of February 11, 2009, in Davao City, during fiesta celebrations. Two separate Informations for rape were filed against Amarela and Racho, respectively, which were jointly tried.	A conviction for rape based solely on the testimony of the victim requires that such testimony be credible, natural, convincing, consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lingering doubts arising from material inconsistencies, testimonial improbabilities, and inconclusive medico-legal findings warrant an acquittal.	Criminal Law II Rape
AAA vs. BBB (11th January 2018)	AK337012 823 Phil. 607 , G.R. No. 212448	Petitioner AAA and respondent BBB were married in the Philippines and had two children. BBB started working in Singapore and later allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair there. AAA claimed this affair, along with other alleged abuses like lack of financial support and abandonment, caused her mental and emotional anguish while she was residing in Pasig City, Philippines.	Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction over a charge of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, even if the act causing such violence (e.g., marital infidelity) occurred outside the Philippines, provided that the victim, who is a resident of the Philippines, experienced the resulting mental or emotional anguish within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine court.	Criminal Law II VAWC
De Lima vs. Guerrero (10th October 2017)	AK175936 843 SCRA 1 , 819 Phil. 616 , G.R. No. 229781	Legislative inquiries into drug syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison led to complaints against Senator De Lima for illegal drug trading. These complaints were consolidated before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Prosecutors for preliminary investigation. De Lima challenged the DOJ Panel's jurisdiction, arguing that the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction.	The Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit due to prematurity, violation of the hierarchy of courts and the rule against forum shopping, and for failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 has jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 17-165.	Criminal Law II
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo (15th August 2017)	AK282688 837 SCRA 160 , 816 Phil. 789 , G.R. No. 226679	* The case arose within the context of the Philippine government's intensified campaign against illegal drugs, governed by Republic Act No. 9165. * RA 9165 contained a specific provision, Section 23, that explicitly disallowed plea bargaining for any offense under the Act, diverging from the general availability of plea bargaining in other criminal cases under the Rules of Court.	Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining in all cases involving violations of the said Act, is unconstitutional because it contravenes the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, as mandated by Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.	Civil Procedure I Criminal Law I Criminal Procedure Rule-making power of the SC
National Housing Authority vs. Laurito (31st July 2017)	AK182462 833 SCRA 380 , 814 Phil. 1019 , G.R. No. 191657	The case arose from conflicting claims of ownership over Lot F-3 of subdivision plan Psd-12274 in Carmona, Cavite. The heirs of Spouses Laurito based their claim on TCT No. T-9943 registered in 1956 (later reconstituted as RT-8747 in 1962), derived from TCT No. T-8237. Petitioner NHA based its claim on TCT Nos. T-3717 and T-3741, derived through a series of transfers originating from an alleged administrative reconstitution of the same parent title, TCT No. T-8237, in 1960 (as RT 3909) and subsequent subdivisions/transfers starting in 1960.	Where two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land, the certificate of title issued earlier in date must prevail, and the reconstitution of a title does not determine ownership nor grant priority based merely on the date of reconstitution, especially when the reconstitution itself is dubious and pertains to a title already cancelled prior to the reconstitution.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs. Department of Justice (25th July 2017)	AK758754 832 SCRA 36 , 814 Phil. 440 , G.R. No. 232413	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) discovered pre-trial detainees languishing in jail for years without charges due to DOJ circulars requiring automatic reviews. Jay-Ar Senin, arrested in a 2015 drug buy-bust, waived Article 125 of the RPC, but his case was dismissed and remained under DOJ review for eight months.	The waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code must coincide with the prescribed period for preliminary investigation. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's constitutional right to liberty. Detainees must be released if preliminary investigations exceed statutory timelines or if their cases are dismissed (even pending review), unless lawfully held for other causes.	Criminal Law II
Edron Construction Corporation vs. Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur (5th June 2017)	AK304488 826 SCRA 47 , 810 Phil. 347 , G.R. No. 220211	The dispute originated from three separate construction agreements entered into by petitioners Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim with the respondent, the Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur, for the construction of the Learning Resource Center of Tandag, Tandag Bus/Jeepney Terminal, and Tandag Public Market.	Defenses not pleaded in the Answer or in a timely Motion to Dismiss, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription, are deemed waived pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, and a party failing to raise such defenses is estopped from relying on them later in the proceedings.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Castro vs. Mendoza (26th April 2017)	AK470027 809 Phil. 789 , G.R. No. 212778	The case originates from the sale of a portion of agricultural land, tenanted by the petitioners, by one of the co-owning heirs to the respondent Municipality of Bustos for the expansion of its public market. The sale occurred without written notice to the petitioners, triggering their right of redemption under agrarian law. The property had already been classified as commercial, and a public market was constructed and operating on it before the petitioners formally sought redemption.	An agricultural lessee's right of redemption under Section 12 of RA 3844, as amended, must be validly exercised through timely tender and consignation of the full and reasonable redemption price; failure to do so, coupled with the property's actual conversion and devotion to public use, prevents the lessee from acquiring ownership and possession, although they remain entitled to disturbance compensation.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City (7th March 2017)	AK274299 819 SCRA 313 , 806 Phil. 822 , A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC	The controversy began with letters from Tony Q. Valenciano to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, complaining that the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice was being used as a Roman Catholic Chapel for daily masses, complete with religious icons and an offertory table. Valenciano asserted this practice violated constitutional provisions and caused various practical inconveniences.	The temporary and voluntary holding of religious rituals, such as Catholic masses during lunch breaks, in a common area of a public building like a Hall of Justice, does not violate the Establishment Clause or the prohibition against the appropriation of public money or property for religious purposes, provided it does not involve coercion, expenditure of public funds, permanent appropriation of the space, or prejudice to other religions, and represents a permissible accommodation of the employees' right to free exercise of religion under the principle of benevolent neutrality.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Freedom of Religion
Gamaro vs. People (27th February 2017)	AK713753 806 Phil. 483 , G.R. No. 211917	The case originated from a business venture in 2002 where Joan Fructoza E. Fineza (private complainant) would provide jewelry to petitioner Norma C. Gamaro and her daughters, petitioner Josephine G. Umali and accused Rowena Gamaro, for them to sell. The agreement involved Fineza purchasing foreclosed jewelry identified by Umali (a pawnshop manager), Norma Gamaro selling them, and profits being split. Checks were issued as security for the jewelry.	The actual recital of facts in the information, not the caption or the specific provision of law cited, determines the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused; thus, an accused can be convicted of a crime adequately described by the facts in the information, even if it's different from the specific paragraph of the statute initially designated, provided the accused is not deprived of the right to be informed of the charge.	Criminal Law II Estafa
Belen vs. People (13th February 2017)	AK787101 805 Phil. 628 , G.R. No. 211120	The petitioner, Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, then a practicing lawyer, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle. This complaint was assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Ma. Victoria Suñega-Lagman for preliminary investigation. ACP Suñega-Lagman subsequently dismissed the estafa complaint, which aggrieved the petitioner and led him to file an Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify) containing the statements that became the basis for the libel charge.	Defamatory statements made by a party or counsel in pleadings filed during judicial or administrative proceedings lose the protection of absolute privilege if such statements are irrelevant or impertinent to the cause or subject of inquiry, particularly when they constitute personal attacks on the character, honor, or reputation of an individual.	Criminal Law II Libel and Cyberlibel
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (6th December 2016)	AK148530 812 SCRA 452 , 802 Phil. 116 , G.R. No. 207132 , G.R. No. 207205	The case revolves around the practice of "referral decking" for medical examinations of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). This system required OFWs to go through GAMCA for referral to specific clinics for health examinations. The DOH initially allowed this practice but later sought to prohibit it through administrative orders and eventually through legislation (RA 10022). When the DOH issued cease and desist orders against GAMCA to stop the referral decking system, GAMCA challenged this in court, leading to a legal battle over the validity of the prohibition and its implementation.		Constitutional Law I
Majestic Plus Holdings International, Inc. vs. Bullion Investment and Development Corporation (5th December 2016)	AK807038 812 SCRA 91 , 801 Phil. 883 , G.R. No. 201017 , G.R. No. 215289	The City of Manila leased a property to Bullion for development, requiring the construction of a City Hall extension and a commercial building (Meisic Mall). Bullion completed the extension but struggled with the mall construction, prompting it to seek investment from Majestic. This led to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where Majestic agreed to acquire 80% equity in Bullion and infuse capital to complete the mall.	Summary judgment is improper when there are genuine issues of fact that require the presentation of evidence during a full-blown trial, such as disputes over compliance with contractual obligations, the validity of an extrajudicial rescission, and the substantiation of claimed expenses; furthermore, the designation of a Regional Trial Court branch as a Special Commercial Court (SCC) does not divest it of its general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases.	Civil Procedure I
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan vs. Garcia, Jr. (5th October 2016)	AK518566 804 SCRA 629 , 796 Phil. 414 , G.R. No. 174964	The Province of Bataan owned land occupied by the Medina Lacson de Leon School of Arts and Trades (MLLSAT) and Bataan Community Colleges (BCC). Republic Act No. 8562 converted MLLSAT into Bataan Polytechnic State College (BPSC) and integrated BCC into it, declaring the lands occupied by these schools as property of BPSC and mandating the transfer of titles. The Province of Bataan refused to transfer the titles, claiming the lands were patrimonial property and mortgaged.	The Supreme Court held that the subject parcels of land are considered communal property of the State, held in trust by the Province of Bataan, and therefore are subject to the absolute control and disposition of the National Government through Congress. A writ of mandamus compelling the transfer of land titles to BPSC was correctly issued.	Property and Land Law
Ursua vs. Republic (5th October 2016)	AK913389 805 SCRA 1 , 796 Phil. 439 , G.R. Nos. 177857-58 , G.R. No. 178193	The case originates from the sequestration of assets, including SMC shares held by Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) Holding Companies, alleged to have been acquired using coco levy funds during the Marcos regime. A 1986 sale of 33.1 million SMC shares by CIIF Holding Companies (administered by UCPB) to the SMC Group was partially rescinded through a 1990 Compromise Agreement between UCPB Group and SMC Group, which required PCGG approval. This agreement recognized SMC's ownership of shares corresponding to its initial P500 million payment (which became 25.45 million shares due to stock dividends/splits) and designated them as SMC treasury shares, while the rest reverted to CIIF Holding Companies. The Republic later sought to include these 25.45 million treasury shares in the assets declared as publicly owned and subject to reconveyance.	The Court lacks jurisdiction to order San Miguel Corporation (SMC), a non-party to Civil Case No. 0033-F, to deliver the 25.45 million SMC treasury shares (originating from the 1990 Compromise Agreement) to the Republic, as doing so without impleading SMC violates its constitutional right to due process.	Civil Procedure I
In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration (12th July 2016)	AK804567 PCA Case No. 2013-19	The South China Sea, rich in natural resources and strategically important for international shipping, has been a subject of territorial disputes among several nations. The Philippines, concerned about China's increasing assertiveness in the region, initiated arbitration proceedings in 2013 to clarify the maritime entitlements of both nations under UNCLOS. Despite China's non-participation and rejection of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the arbitration proceeded. The case attracted global attention due to its potential impact on regional stability and the interpretation of international maritime law.		Constitutional Law I
The Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, et al. (5th July 2016)	AK726602 789 Phil. 197 , G.R. No. 205728	The case arose in the context of the 2013 national elections in the Philippines and the then-recent, highly controversial passage of Republic Act No. 10354, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law). The RH Law was a divisive piece of legislation, with strong opposition from various sectors, including the Catholic Church, to which the petitioners belong. The tarpaulins in question were a direct response to the RH Law, linking candidates' stances on it to a "conscience vote."	The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) does not have the authority to regulate the content or size of political expressions made by private citizens who are not candidates, especially when such expressions involve an advocacy on a social issue, even if they incidentally name candidates and are posted during an election period; any such regulation must withstand strict constitutional scrutiny and is generally an impermissible infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Mercader, Jr. vs. Bardilas (27th June 2016)	AK382375 788 Phil. 136 , 794 SCRA 387 , G.R. No. 163157	The dispute arose between owners of subdivided lots originally part of a larger property. Spouses Mercader and Spouses Bardilas owned adjacent lots, with Spouses Bardilas' lot being burdened by a right of way for the benefit of Spouses Mercader's lot and others to access Clarita Village. A fence erected by the Clarita Village Association restricted the original exit of the right of way, leading to conflicts about encroachment and the extent of rights over the easement.	The owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion of land burdened by a road right of way easement and may use it, provided such use does not hinder the easement's purpose. The phrase "with existing Right of Way" in a title doesn't automatically grant the dominant estate ownership of the easement area.	Property and Land Law
Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas (30th May 2016)	AK786051 791 SCRA 272 , 785 Phil. 712 , G.R. No. 180110	Capwire, a telecommunications company, claimed co-ownership of the "Wet Segment" of submarine cable systems laid internationally and reported "Indefeasible Rights in Cable Systems" as property. For loan restructuring, Capwire assessed the value of its right and submitted a sworn statement for real properties. The Provincial Assessor of Batangas then issued real property tax assessments on these cable systems. Capwire contested the assessments, arguing the cables were in international waters and not taxable in the Philippines.	The Supreme Court denied Capwire's petition, affirming the dismissal of its appeal. The Court held that Capwire should have exhausted administrative remedies before resorting to court action because factual issues were involved, and that submarine communication cables are considered taxable real property.	Property and Land Law
Alolino vs. Flores (4th April 2016)	AK909292 788 SCRA 92 , 783 Phil. 605 , G.R. No. 198774	Petitioner Alolino owned property with a two-story house. Respondents Flores spouses built a house/sari-sari store on an adjacent municipal/barrio road without a building permit. This structure blocked Alolino's light and ventilation and access to the municipal road from his rear door, prompting him to seek its removal.	The respondents' house/sari-sari store, illegally constructed on a barrio road (public property), is deemed a public and private nuisance per se and must be demolished. The reclassification of the barrio road to residential by the Sanggunian resolution was ineffective because it was not done through a valid ordinance approved by two-thirds of the Sanggunian members.	Property and Land Law
Republic vs. Tan (10th February 2016)	AK918613 783 SCRA 643 , 780 Phil. 764 , G.R. No. 199537	Andrea Tan applied for original land registration based on acquisitive prescription, claiming continuous possession of a parcel of land declared alienable and disposable in 1965. The Municipal Trial Court granted her application, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic appealed, arguing that mere declaration of alienability is insufficient for prescription against the State.	A declaration that government-owned land is alienable and disposable does not, by itself, convert it into patrimonial property of the State; an express declaration that the land is no longer intended for public use or public service is required for acquisitive prescription to apply against the State.	Property and Land Law
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Fadcor, Inc (25th January 2016)	AK549966 781 SCRA 561 , 779 Phil. 32 , G.R. No. 197970	Metrobank extended loans totaling P32,950,000.00 to Fadcor, Inc., secured by real estate mortgages over ten parcels of land and continuing surety agreements executed by individual respondents (Fadcor officers). Fadcor defaulted on its loan obligations.	In an ex parte presentation of evidence resulting from the defendant's failure to appear at pre-trial, documentary evidence formally offered by the plaintiff and subsequently admitted by the trial court is properly considered in rendering judgment, even if the transcript of stenographic notes does not meticulously reflect the identification and marking of each specific exhibit during the witness's testimony; the rules on pre-marking and identification in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC apply primarily to regular pre-trial proceedings where both parties participate.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr. (12th January 2016)	AK958005 779 SCRA 241 , 777 Phil. 280 , G.R. No. 212426 , G.R. No. 212444	The case was brought to the Supreme Court as the petitioners contended that the executive acted beyond its powers by entering into EDCA without Senate concurrence. They argued that the agreement allowed the presence of foreign military troops and facilities, which under the Constitution could only be authorized by a treaty concurred in by the Senate.		Constitutional Law I
Gonzales, et al. vs. GJH Land, Inc., et al. (10th November 2015)	AK690848 774 SCRA 242 , 772 Phil. 483 , G.R. No. 202664	The case arose from a dispute over shares in S.J. Land, Inc. (later GJH Land, Inc.). Petitioners claimed they had fully paid for their subscribed shares, but these shares were subsequently offered for sale to other stockholders by the corporation, prompting petitioners to seek an injunction. This underlying dispute was recognized as an intra-corporate controversy.	The jurisdiction over commercial cases, including intra-corporate disputes, is conferred by Republic Act No. 8799 upon Regional Trial Courts as courts of general jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court's designation of certain RTC branches as Special Commercial Courts is an administrative and procedural measure to promote expediency and efficiency in the exercise of that jurisdiction, not a conferment of jurisdiction itself; therefore, a commercial case erroneously raffled to a regular RTC branch within a station that has a designated Special Commercial Court should be transferred to the latter, not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.	Civil Procedure I
De Leon vs. Chu (2nd September 2015)	AK032805 768 SCRA 609 , 768 Phil. 217 , G.R. No. 186522	The dispute arose from conflicting claims over a 50-square meter parcel of land, originally part of a 600-square meter property owned by Domingo Delos Santos. Domingo allegedly sold the entire 600 sqm to Lolita Chu in 1990. Lolita entrusted the deed to Rowena De Leon before leaving for Japan. Subsequently, a different Deed of Sale emerged dated March 1993, purportedly showing Domingo sold 50 sqm to Rowena and the remaining 550 sqm to Lolita. Rowena registered the 50 sqm portion in her name, leading Lolita and Domingo to claim forgery and file for annulment, while Rowena sought the surrender of the title she claimed Lolita wrongfully withheld.	A violation of the rule on non-forum shopping, specifically the submission of a false certification or non-compliance with undertakings, does not automatically warrant dismissal; dismissal requires willful and deliberate forum shopping, or must follow a motion and hearing, unless the ground for dismissal (like litis pendentia) is evident motu proprio from the pleadings or evidence, a ground which became moot here upon case consolidation.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Manila Electric Company vs. The City Assessor (5th August 2015)	AK880939 765 Phil. 605 , G.R. No. 166102	MERALCO had been operating in Lucena City since 1922 under various franchises, some of which provided tax exemptions on certain electric facilities. Lucena City began assessing real property tax on MERALCO's electric facilities starting 1985. MERALCO contested these assessments, arguing that its facilities were exempt under its franchise and were personal property, not real property.	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, declaring that MERALCO's electric facilities are subject to real property tax under the Local Government Code. However, it nullified the 1997 appraisal and assessment by the City Assessor of Lucena due to violation of MERALCO's right to due process and ordered a new assessment to be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Code.	Property and Land Law
Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) vs. Republic (3rd August 2015)	AK461713 765 Phil. 429 , 764 SCRA 524 , G.R. No. 177168	The land in question was originally part of Fort William McKinley, later Fort Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation (FBMR). Presidential Proclamation No. 423 reserved a large area for military purposes. Proclamation No. 461 excluded a portion as AFP Officers’ Village, intended for disposal under specific laws. Subsequently, Proclamation No. 478 reserved a smaller portion, including the property in dispute, for veterans rehabilitation. NOVAI claimed to have purchased the land from the Republic based on a Deed of Sale referring to a fictitious Proclamation No. 2487.	Land reserved for public or quasi-public purposes remains inalienable public domain unless explicitly withdrawn from such reservation by law or presidential proclamation and positively declared alienable and disposable. A sale of inalienable public land is void ab initio, and the title issued based on such sale is also void.	Property and Land Law
Obergefell vs. Hodges (26th June 2015)	AK784523 576 U.S. 644	The cases arose from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, states whose laws defined marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman, reflecting a long-standing historical definition but contrasting with evolving societal understandings and legal developments regarding the rights of gay and lesbian individuals and the nature of marriage itself. Petitioners sought marriage licenses within their home states or recognition of marriages performed legally in other states, facing denials based on these state laws. This legal challenge occurred against a backdrop of increasing public debate, legislative changes in some states, and numerous court decisions addressing same-sex marriage following landmark cases like _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _United States v. Windsor_.	The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another State.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
San Diego vs. CA (8th April 2015)	AK478899 757 Phil. 599 , G.R. No. 176114	Petitioner Grace San Diego was employed as an accountant for Obando Fisherman's Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OFMPCI) from January 1993 to March 11, 1997. Her responsibilities included accounting for all business transactions, performing cashier and teller functions, granting loans, check discounting, recording bank transactions, and handling pre-signed blank checks. She also temporarily acted as cashier and teller on separate occasions, giving her complete access to cash vaults and cooperative documents.	An employee who, by virtue of their position (e.g., accountant, cashier, teller), has access to and physical possession of company funds but does not have juridical possession over them, commits qualified theft, not estafa, if they take and appropriate such funds with grave abuse of confidence and intent to gain.	Criminal Law II Qualified Theft
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council (7th April 2015)	AK748641 755 SCRA 182 , 757 Phil. 534 , G.R. No. 211833	Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed as a first-level court judge in 2012. In 2013, he applied for promotion to several Regional Trial Court (RTC) positions but was disqualified by the JBC due to its policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge. Villanueva challenged this policy, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated his rights to equal protection and due process.	The Supreme Court held that the JBC's policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge before qualifying for promotion to a second-level court is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection or due process clauses. The Court also ruled that the JBC must publish its policies to ensure transparency.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Aquino vs. Quiazon (11th March 2015)	AK636229 753 SCRA 98 , 755 PHIL. 793 , G.R. No. 201248	The dispute arose from conflicting claims of ownership over a 557-square meter parcel of land in Magalang, Pampanga. Petitioners, heirs of Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, claimed acquisition through a Deed of Sale dated April 20, 1894, and continuous possession. Respondents, heirs of Fausta Baluyut, claimed ownership based on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 213777-R, derived from an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) issued pursuant to a Land Registration Decree in 1919. The conflict escalated when respondents sent demand letters to petitioners to vacate the property in June 2005, leading petitioners to file a complaint for Annulment and Quieting of Title.	When a motion to dismiss (or an affirmative defense treated as such) is based on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the court must determine the sufficiency of the cause of action based solely on the allegations in the complaint, hypothetically admitting their truth, and cannot consider external facts or evidence presented during a preliminary hearing, except in very limited circumstances not present in this case.	Civil Procedure I