Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 599 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
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
Tilar vs. Tilar (12th July 2017)	AK872417 831 SCRA 116 , G.R. No. 214529	The petitioner and private respondent were married in a Catholic church in 1996. After their relationship deteriorated due to the respondent's alleged psychological incapacity, the petitioner filed a civil case to have their marriage declared void. The trial court, however, refused to hear the case, believing that it had no authority to rule on the validity of a marriage performed by the church, citing the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. This led the petitioner to appeal directly to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law regarding the court's jurisdiction.	Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, regardless of whether the marriage was solemnized in a church, because the state governs the civil and legal consequences of marriage as a special contract and an inviolable social institution under the Family Code.	Persons and Family Law
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
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Bernardo (7th November 2016)	AK790851 807 SCRA 29 , G.R. No. 190667	The dispute arose from a long-standing business relationship between petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI), a large-scale beverage manufacturer, and respondents Spouses Bernardo, who operated "Jolly Beverage Enterprises" as a wholesaler and exclusive distributor of CCBPI's products in certain areas of Quezon City since 1987. Their partnership, formalized through exclusive dealership agreements, deteriorated when CCBPI, towards the end of their last contract, implemented strategic actions that the respondents claimed were aimed at eliminating them as a competitor and taking over their established customer base.	A manufacturer that employs deceit, oppression, and high-handed business methods to unjustly take over the market of its own distributor, such as by using a customer list obtained through a false promise and implementing discriminatory pricing schemes, is liable for damages under the principles of abuse of rights (Articles 19, 20, and 21) and unfair competition (Article 28) of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 19, 20, 21, and 28, Civil Code
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
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, et al. vs. Secretary Reyes, et al. (21st April 2015)	AK704946 758 Phil. 724 , G.R. No. 180771 , G.R. No. 181527	The Tañon Strait, a critical marine habitat located between Negros and Cebu, was declared a protected seascape in 1998. Despite this status, the Philippine government, through the Department of Energy (DOE), entered into agreements with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) for oil exploration in the area, culminating in Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46). This led to concerns from environmental groups and local fisherfolk about the project's impact on the marine ecosystem and their livelihoods.	Service contracts for the exploration, development, and utilization of petroleum resources with foreign-owned corporations are permissible under paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provided they adhere to specific safeguards: (1) the contract must be crafted in accordance with a general law setting standard terms; (2) the President must be the signatory for the government; and (3) the President must report the executed agreement to Congress within thirty days. Furthermore, any activity within a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act, such as exploration for energy resources, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), and if exploitation is involved, a specific law passed by Congress.	Constitutional Law I
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
Benabaye vs. People (25th February 2015)	AK922866 755 Phil. 145 , G.R. No. 203466	The case arose from an internal audit conducted by Siam Bank Inc., Iligan City Branch, which uncovered alleged fraud and irregularities in its loan transactions. Specifically, the audit revealed non-remittance of loan payments collected by its employees, including petitioner Cherry Ann Benabaye, who was a Loans Bookkeeper.	An employee who receives money or property on behalf of an employer acquires only material or physical possession, not juridical possession; thus, the misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the employee constitutes theft, not Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.	Criminal Law II Theft
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) vs. United Planners Consultants, Inc (23rd February 2015)	AK719310 751 SCRA 389 , 754 Phil. 513 , G.R. No. 212081	DENR entered a consultancy agreement with UPCI in 1993 but paid only 47% of the contract price. After UPCI sued for non-payment, the case was referred to arbitration, resulting in a monetary award. DENR challenged the award’s confirmation and execution but failed to follow procedural rules.	The CA correctly dismissed DENR’s petition for certiorari as it was filed out of time under the Special ADR Rules, and the confirmed arbitral award’s execution remains subject to COA’s approval.	Statutory Construction
Leus vs. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (28th January 2015)	AK411346 748 SCRA 378 , 752 PHIL. 186 , G.R. No. 187226	This case revolves around the dismissal of a non-teaching staff member from a Catholic school after becoming pregnant out of wedlock, leading to a legal battle over whether such circumstance constitutes valid grounds for termination of employment.	Pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other, and consequently conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not amount to disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (MRPS).	Philosophy of Law
Kalaw vs. Fernandez (14th January 2015)	AK745229 745 SCRA 512 , G.R. No. 166357	Valerio E. Kalaw (petitioner) and Ma. Elena Fernandez (respondent) were married on November 4, 1976. The petitioner filed a complaint to declare their marriage null and void on the ground of respondent's psychological incapacity. He alleged that her constant mahjong sessions, neglect of their children, infidelity, and obsessive need for attention were manifestations of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that rendered her incapable of performing her essential marital duties. The respondent denied these allegations and countered that it was the petitioner who was psychologically incapacitated.	The determination of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code should be based on the totality of evidence presented in each case, and courts must consider expert opinions as decisive evidence, even without a personal examination of the subject, provided the opinion is based on verifiable facts on record. A rigid and overly strict application of the Molina guidelines should be avoided, as the concept of psychological incapacity is not meant to be a "strait-jacket" but should be applied with resiliency to give a "decent burial to a stillborn marriage." Psychological incapacity may be proven to exist in either or both spouses, and if established, justifies the declaration of the marriage as null and void.	Persons and Family Law Article 36 of the Family Code
Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem (10th December 2014)	AK580817 749 Phil. 823 , G.R. No. 193707	Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro, a Filipina, and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, a Dutch national, were married in Holland and had a son, Roderigo. Their marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree in Holland. Petitioner and her son returned to the Philippines. Respondent, who also came to the Philippines and remarried, allegedly failed to provide the promised monthly support to their son.	A foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give financial support to his minor child, even if his national law might not impose such an obligation, if said foreign law is not proven in Philippine courts (invoking processual presumption) or if applying such foreign law would be contrary to Philippine public policy or work an injustice to a resident child.	Criminal Law II VAWC
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. BASF Coating + Inks Phil., Inc (26th November 2014)	AK919594 743 SCRA 113 , 748 Phil. 760 , G.R. No. 198677	BASF dissolved on March 31, 2001, and relocated to Calamba, Laguna. The BIR issued a FAN for 1999 tax deficiencies on January 17, 2003, but mailed it to BASF’s old Las Piñas address. BASF protested the assessment, arguing prescription and lack of valid notice. The CTA and CTA En Banc ruled in favor of BASF, prompting the BIR to appeal to the Supreme Court.	The BIR’s right to assess deficiency taxes against BASF for 1999 prescribed under the three-year statutory period under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The Formal Assessment Notice (FAN) was invalid because it was sent to BASF’s former address despite the BIR’s documented awareness of its new location.	Statutory Construction
Zuñiga-Santos vs. Santos-Gran (8th October 2014)	AK127777 738 SCRA 33 , 745 Phil. 171 , G.R. No. 197380	The case originated from a dispute over three parcels of land allegedly owned by petitioner Eliza Zuñiga-Santos. Petitioner claimed these properties were fraudulently transferred to respondent Maria Divina Gracia Santos-Gran, purportedly the petitioner's daughter through a forged birth certificate, by petitioner's second husband, Lamberto C. Santos, using void and voidable documents, specifically a Deed of Sale that could not initially be located.	An amended complaint that fails to sufficiently allege ultimate facts establishing the plaintiff's right to the subject properties and the invalidity of their transfer, and which seeks reconveyance based on an implied trust more than ten years after the registration of the disputed titles in the defendant's name, is dismissible for failure to state a cause of action and for prescription.	Civil Procedure I
Arigo vs. Swift (16th September 2014)	AK295910 735 SCRA 102 , 743 Phil. 8 , G.R. No. 206510	The grounding of the USS Guardian on Tubbataha Reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and protected area under Philippine law, caused significant environmental damage. The incident sparked public outrage and raised questions about the US military presence in Philippine waters under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Various environmental and activist groups filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, seeking accountability and compensation for the reef damage.		Constitutional Law I
Pulgar vs. The Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon, Br. 64, et al. (10th September 2014)	AK670551 734 SCRA 527 , 742 Phil. 557 , G.R. No. 157583	The dispute originated from the Municipal Assessor of Mauban, Quezon's assessment of substantial realty taxes on the Mauban Plant, a power generation facility owned by QPL, based on a market value of approximately P29.6 billion. QPL contested this assessment, declaring a much lower value of about P15 billion, and tendered a significantly smaller amount as its first quarter installment for realty taxes, which was rejected by the Municipal Assessor.	Jurisdiction over an intervention is contingent upon the court's jurisdiction over the main action; an intervention is ancillary and supplemental, not an independent proceeding, and thus ceases to exist when the main case is dismissed, particularly on jurisdictional grounds.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
SM Land, Inc. vs. Bases Conversion and Development Authority (13th August 2014)	AK100107 733 SCRA 68 , 756 PHIL. 354 , G.R. No. 203655	The dispute originated from an unsolicited proposal submitted by SMLI to BCDA for the development of the Bonifacio South Property through a joint venture. After negotiations, BCDA accepted the proposal's terms and conditions and issued a Certification of Successful Negotiations (CSN), agreeing to subject SMLI's proposal to a competitive challenge (Swiss Challenge) as outlined in the NEDA JV Guidelines and the agreed Terms of Reference (TOR). Subsequently, BCDA unilaterally cancelled the competitive challenge process, intending to subject the property to public bidding instead, prompting SMLI to file a petition.	Administrative issuances duly promulgated pursuant to delegated rule-making power, such as the NEDA JV Guidelines issued under presidential directives (EO 109, EO 109-A, EO 423), have the force and effect of law and are binding on the government agencies covered, which cannot unilaterally deviate from the mandatory procedures therein, like the competitive challenge process following successful negotiation of an unsolicited proposal.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
People vs. Cogaed (30th July 2014)	AK442715 740 Phil. 212 , G.R. No. 200334	The case arose within the context of law enforcement efforts against illegal drug trafficking, specifically involving the transportation of marijuana in the province of La Union. Police acted based on a text message from an unidentified civilian informant regarding the transport of marijuana by a named individual, leading to the establishment of a checkpoint and the subsequent apprehension and search of the accused.	Evidence obtained through a warrantless search based merely on an unverified tip from an informant or a third party's suspicion, without independent observation of suspicious activity by the police officer establishing a genuine reason, does not constitute a valid "stop and frisk" search, and such illegally seized evidence is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
Araullo vs. Aquino (1st July 2014)	AK306263 728 SCRA 1 , 737 Phil. 457 , G.R. No. 209287 , G.R. NO. 209135 , G.R. NO. 209136 , G.R. NO. 209155 , G.R. NO. 209164 , G.R. NO. 209260 , G.R. NO. 209442 , G.R. NO. 209517 , G.R. NO. 209569	The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was a mechanism introduced by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under Secretary Florencio Abad. It allowed the executive branch to pool savings from various government agencies and realign them to other projects to accelerate economic growth. However, petitioners argued that it violated the constitutional power of Congress over appropriations.	The Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring several aspects of the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program) unconstitutional, including: the withdrawal of unobligated allotments and their designation as savings before the fiscal year's end, the cross-border transfers of savings to offices outside the Executive branch, and the use of savings to fund programs, activities, or projects not covered by the GAA (General Appropriations Act). In applying the Operative Fact Doctrine, the Court established that while projects already implemented under the DAP in good faith would remain intact, the officials responsible for these actions could still be held accountable.	Constitutional Law I Persons and Family Law Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
People vs. Jumawan (21st April 2014)	AK373008 722 SCRA 108 , 733 Phil. 102 , G.R. No. 187495	The accused-appellant, Edgar Jumawan, and the private complainant, KKK, were married in 1975, raised four children, and established several businesses primarily managed by KKK. While their conjugal intimacy was initially fulfilling, the accused-appellant reportedly became sexually brutal starting in 1997, foregoing foreplay and causing physical pain, leading KKK to resist, which resulted in threats. In 1998, quarrels increased, often initiated by the accused-appellant complaining about KKK's preoccupation with their businesses' financial problems and her alleged failure to attend to him, stating a woman's place was at home and in bed.	R.A. No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, unequivocally criminalizes marital rape, and the archaic doctrine of irrevocable implied consent to sexual intercourse within marriage is rejected; therefore, a husband can be convicted of raping his wife if the act is committed through force, threat, or intimidation, just like any other perpetrator, without requiring different elements of the crime or standards of proof.	Criminal Law II Rape
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	AK609982 721 SCRA 146 , 732 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 204819 , G.R. No. 204934 , G.R. No. 204957 , G.R. No. 204988 , G.R. No. 205003 , G.R. No. 205043 , G.R. No. 205138 , G.R. No. 205478 , G.R. No. 205491 , G.R. No. 205720 , G.R. No. 206355 , G.R. No. 207111 , G.R. No. 207172 , G.R. No. 207563	The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.	The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the RH Law and its IRR unconstitutional, specifically those related to abortifacients as redefined by the IRR, restrictions on conscientious objectors, lack of parental or spousal consent in specific situations, and limitations on health facilities operated by religious groups. However, the majority of the RH Law was upheld as constitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Republic vs. De Guzman Vda. de Joson (10th March 2014)	AK697117 728 Phil. 550 , 718 SCRA 228 , G.R. No. 163767	Rosario de Guzman Vda. de Joson applied for land registration based on her and her predecessors-in-interest's alleged open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since 1926. The Republic opposed, arguing the land was unclassified forest land and not subject to private appropriation. The CFI and CA ruled in favor of De Joson, but the Republic appealed to the Supreme Court.	The application for land registration is denied because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain, a prerequisite for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.	Property and Land Law
Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation (18th February 2014)	AK989956 716 SCRA 207 , 727 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 172302	Pryce Corporation filed for corporate rehabilitation in 2004. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati found the petition sufficient and issued a stay order. The rehabilitation receiver submitted an amended plan, which the RTC approved. China Banking Corporation (China Bank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) challenged the approval, leading to conflicting rulings in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of Pryce Corporation.	The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of res judicata applied, affirming the validity of the rehabilitation court’s order approving Pryce Corporation’s rehabilitation plan. The Court also ruled that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation do not require a hearing before issuing a stay order.	Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	AK238408 727 Phil. 28 , G.R. No. 203335 , G.R. No. 203299 , G.R. No. 203306 , G.R. No. 203359 , G.R. No. 203378 , G.R. No. 203391 , G.R. No. 203407 , G.R. No. 203440 , G.R. No. 203453 , G.R. No. 203454 , G.R. No. 203469 , G.R. No. 203501 , G.R. No. 203501 , G.R. No. 203515 , G.R. No. 203518	The proliferation of internet use and the rise of cyberspace activities brought about new avenues for communication, commerce, and information dissemination, but also new forms of criminal behavior collectively termed "cybercrimes." Recognizing the need to address these emerging threats, the Philippine government enacted Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, to define and penalize various offenses committed through or with the use of computer systems, and to provide for their prevention, investigation, and prosecution.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) is constitutional in its general aim to regulate and punish cybercrimes, but specific provisions that unduly curtail fundamental rights, such as certain aspects of online libel, unsolicited commercial communications, real-time collection of traffic data without a warrant, and the power of the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data, are unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Police Power; Freedom of Expression, Libel, and Cyberlibel
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (3rd December 2013)	AK580749 711 SCRA 302 , 722 Phil. 538 , G.R. No. 175356	Manila Memorial Park, Inc. and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme implemented for senior citizen discounts, claiming it violates the constitutional provision against taking private property for public use without just compensation.	The Supreme Court held that the 20% senior citizen discount mandated by RA 7432, as amended by RA 9257, and the corresponding tax deduction scheme are a valid exercise of the State's police power and do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property requiring just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. Bacas (20th November 2013)	AK418209 710 SCRA 411 , 721 Phil. 808 , G.R. No. 182913	President Quezon issued Proclamation No. 265 in 1938, reserving land for military purposes, creating Camp Evangelista. Despite this, the Bacases and Chabons filed separate land registration applications in 1964 and 1974, respectively, for parcels within the reservation. The Land Registration Court granted their applications, leading to Original Certificates of Title. The Republic then filed actions to annul these titles.	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court decisions, holding that the Land Registration Court lacked jurisdiction to register inalienable public land, specifically land within a military reservation, and that the land titles obtained through fraudulent applications are void ab initio and must be cancelled.	Property and Land Law