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
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
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.	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
Belgica vs. Ochoa (19th November 2013)	AK249819 710 SCRA 1 , 721 Phil. 416 , G.R. No. 208566 , G.R. No. 208493 , G.R. No. 209251	The case arose from public outrage and concern over the alleged misuse and corruption associated with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other lump-sum discretionary funds, particularly in light of the Commission on Audit (CoA) report and the "Napoles controversy."	The Court held that the post-enactment authority granted to legislators under the PDAF and similar schemes constitutes an impermissible intrusion into the Executive's budget execution domain, and that lump-sum discretionary funds without specific guidelines amount to an undue delegation of legislative power and undermines the President's item-veto power.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. vs. Alabang Medical Center (13th November 2013)	AK886820 721 Phil. 155 , G.R. No. 181983	Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. (CIGI), a seller and installer of industrial gas systems, and Alabang Medical Center (AMC), a hospital operator, entered into two contracts. The first, on August 14, 1995, was for the installation of a medical gas pipeline system for the hospital's first to third floors (Phase 1), which AMC fully paid. The dispute arose from a second contract on October 3, 1996, for the continuation of the system to the fourth and fifth floors (Phase 2), under the same terms as Phase 1.	In reciprocal obligations arising from the same cause, where each party is a debtor and creditor of the other, the performance of one obligation is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other; thus, a party cannot demand performance from the other if it has not complied or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon it.	Obligations and Contracts
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation (8th October 2013)	AK589834 690 SCRA 336 , 719 Phil. 137 , G.R. No. 187485 , G.R. No. 196113 , G.R. No. 197156	San Roque Power Corporation filed a judicial claim for VAT refund 13 days after its administrative claim, violating the 120-day waiting period. The Court of Tax Appeals granted the refund, but the Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural timelines.	The 120+30-day periods under Section 112(C) of the Tax Code are mandatory and jurisdictional, except for claims filed between December 10, 2003 (issuance of BIR Ruling DA-489-03) and October 6, 2010 (promulgation of Aichi), where taxpayers could rely on the erroneous ruling in good faith.	Statutory Construction
Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines (3rd September 2013)	AK741804 704 SCRA 561 , 717 Phil. 141 , G.R. No. 179987	Mario Malabanan applied for land registration in 1998 claiming ownership through purchase and continuous, open, public, and adverse possession for over 30 years, asserting the land was alienable and disposable public land. The Republic opposed, arguing failure to prove the land's alienable and disposable nature and insufficient possession as required by law.	The motions for reconsideration from both the petitioners and the respondent are denied, reaffirming the original decision that the petitioners failed to sufficiently prove their right to land registration because they did not establish possession and occupation of the property or by their predecessors-in-interest since June 12, 1945, nor did they fully comply with the requirements of Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.	Property and Land Law
Chingkoe vs. Republic (13th July 2013)	AK079924 702 SCRA 677 , 715 Phil. 651 , G.R. No. 183608	The case originated from two separate collection suits filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs (BOC), seeking to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and taxes from Chiat Sing Cardboard Inc. and Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation (Filstar), along with individual defendants including the petitioners Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe. The basis for the collection suits was the alleged use of fake and spurious tax credit certificates originally issued to Filstar and subsequently used by Chiat Sing to settle import duties, and the fraudulent acquisition of tax credit certificates by Filstar itself.	An order dismissing a case for the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court is a final order, considered an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice unless otherwise stated, and the proper remedy against such dismissal is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Garcia vs. Drilon (25th June 2013)	AK592766 699 SCRA 352 , 712 Phil. 44 , G.R. No. 179267	Republic Act No. 9262 was enacted by Congress in 2004 as a landmark law defining and criminalizing various forms of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by intimate partners (husbands, former husbands, partners, etc.), providing protective measures like protection orders, and outlining duties of government officials in responding to VAWC complaints. The law was a response to the high prevalence of domestic violence against women in the Philippines, often committed by their intimate partners, and aimed to address the historically unequal power relations between men and women. This case arose when a husband, subjected to Temporary Protection Orders under RA 9262, challenged the law's fundamental validity before the courts.	Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause, the due process clause, or constitute an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials.	Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II Equal Protection, VAWC
Eagleridge Development Corporation vs. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (10th April 2013)	AK544596 695 SCRA 714 , 708 Phil. 693 , G.R. No. 204700	Export and Industry Bank (EIB) initiated a collection suit against Eagleridge Development Corporation (EDC) and its sureties, Marcelo N. Naval and Crispin I. Oben, for an outstanding loan obligation. During the pendency of this suit, EIB assigned EDC's loan obligation to Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (Cameron), a special purpose vehicle, through a Deed of Assignment which referenced an underlying Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA). Cameron was subsequently substituted as the plaintiff in the collection case.	A party defending against a claim based on an assigned credit, especially a credit in litigation, has the right under the rules of discovery (Rule 27) to compel the production of documents like a Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) that are explicitly mentioned in the Deed of Assignment and necessary to determine the consideration paid, particularly when invoking the right of legal redemption under Article 1634 of the Civil Code.	Civil Procedure I Discovery
Bongalon vs. People (20th March 2013)	AK835327 694 SCRA 12 , 707 Phil. 11 , G.R. No. 169533	The incident occurred during an evening procession where the petitioner's minor daughters and the victim, Jayson dela Cruz (a 12-year-old minor), along with his brother, were participants or bystanders. An initial altercation involving alleged stone-throwing and name-calling between the children preceded the petitioner's confrontation with Jayson.	An act of laying hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 only if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused specifically intended to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being; otherwise, the act is punishable under the Revised Penal Code for physical injuries.	Criminal Law II Slight Physical Injuries, Child Abuse
Anchor Savings Bank vs. Furigay (13th March 2013)	AK235702 706 Phil. 378 , G.R. No. 191178	Anchor Savings Bank (ASB) had an existing loan with Ciudad Transport Services, Inc. (CTS), its president Henry H. Furigay, and his wife Gelinda C. Furigay. When CTS and the Furigays defaulted on their loan obligation, ASB filed a complaint for sum of money. While this collection case was pending, the Furigay spouses donated several of their registered properties to their minor children, Hegem and Herriette Furigay. ASB, believing this donation was made to defraud creditors, subsequently filed a separate action for rescission of the deed of donation.	An action for rescission of a contract in fraud of creditors (accion pauliana) is subsidiary in nature and cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same; the complaint for accion pauliana must allege that the creditor has exhausted all properties of the debtor and has no other legal remedy.	Obligations and Contracts
Cruz vs. Atty. Gruspe (13th March 2013)	AK238573 706 Phil. 406 , G.R. No. 191431	The dispute originated from a vehicular accident on October 24, 1999, where a minibus owned by petitioner Rodolfo G. Cruz and driven by Arturo Davin collided with the Toyota Corolla car belonging to respondent Atty. Delfin Gruspe, causing Gruspe's car to be a total wreck. This incident led to Cruz and Leonardo Q. Ibias executing a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking the following day to compensate Gruspe.	A document titled "Joint Affidavit of Undertaking" which contains clear promissory stipulations to perform an obligation (e.g., replace a damaged item or pay its value by a certain date) constitutes a binding contract if the essential elements of consent, object, and cause are present, irrespective of its title. Interest on a monetary obligation arising from such a contract, where the contract stipulates a payment deadline but is silent on when interest for delay begins, accrues only from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand, not automatically from the payment deadline. Furthermore, courts may equitably reduce stipulated interest rates that are found to be excessive or unconscionable.	Obligations and Contracts
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College (12th March 2013)	AK827333 693 SCRA 141 , 706 Phil. 138 , G.R. No. 161107	The City of Marikina enacted Ordinance No. 192 aiming to regulate fence construction for public safety, security, beautification, and neighborliness. The ordinance set height limits and see-through requirements for fences and mandated a five-meter parking setback for certain establishments, including educational institutions. St. Scholastica's College, affected by this ordinance, challenged its validity.	Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 of Marikina City, which regulate fence height and setback requirements, are invalid exercises of police power because they are not reasonably necessary for the stated purposes, are unduly oppressive, and constitute a taking of private property without just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Pilar Development Corporation vs. Dumadag (11th March 2013)	AK661257 693 SCRA 96 , 706 Phil. 93 , G.R. No. 194336	Pilar Development Corporation claimed ownership of a property within Pilar Village Subdivision, a portion of which was occupied by respondents who built shanties. PDC filed an accion publiciana to evict the respondents, arguing they built without consent on land designated for village recreational facilities. The respondents countered that the local government, not PDC, had jurisdiction over the area. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed PDC's complaint, finding the occupied area was a public easement.	Pilar Development Corporation cannot recover possession of the 3-meter strip of land designated for public easement because it is considered part of the public dominion. The proper party to institute an action concerning this public easement is the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General or the local government of Las Piñas City.	Property and Land Law
Dayao vs. Commission on Elections (29th January 2013)	AK885502 689 SCRA 412 , 702 Phil. 348 , G.R. No. 193643	Petitioners, who are dealers of LPG and an association of industries, sought to cancel the registration of LPGMA as a sectoral organization under the Party-List System, arguing that LPGMA did not represent a marginalized sector.	The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for cancellation of LPGMA's registration, as the grounds for cancellation were not among those listed in the Party-List System Act, and the complaint was essentially a belated opposition to the registration.	Statutory Construction
Giron vs. Commission on Elections (22nd January 2013)	AK774340 689 SCRA 97 , 702 Phil. 30 , G.R. No. 188179	The case was a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by Giron against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the implementation of the Fair Election Act.	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 12 and 14 of RA 9006, finding that they are germane to the general subject of the law, which aims to ensure fair election practices.	Statutory Construction
Spouses Mamaril vs. The Boy Scout of the Philippines (14th January 2013)	AK436103 701 Phil. 400 , G.R. No. 179382	Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril were jeepney operators who, since 1971, parked their six passenger jeepneys every night at the Boy Scout of the Philippines' (BSP) compound for a monthly fee of P300.00 per unit. BSP had a contract with AIB Security Agency, Inc. (AIB) for security services at its compound, which included the deployment of security guards.	A lessor of a parking space (BSP) is not liable for the loss of a vehicle parked therein due to the negligence of security guards supplied by an independent security agency (AIB), where there is no employer-employee relationship between the lessor and the guards, no principal-agent relationship, and the security contract between the lessor and the agency does not contain a stipulation pour autrui in favor of the lessee. The contractual relationship between the vehicle owner paying a parking fee and the parking lot owner, where the owner retains the keys and control of the vehicle, is one of lease, not bailment.	Obligations and Contracts
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (23rd August 2012)	AK560575 679 SCRA 54 , 693 Phil. 226 , G.R. No. 171182	The case originated from a construction contract dispute between UP and Stern Builders. When UP failed to pay, Stern Builders sued and won a judgment for damages. UP's attempts to appeal were denied for being late, leading to the garnishment of its funds. UP then challenged the garnishment through various legal actions, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.		Constitutional Law I
Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (31st July 2012)	AK055973 678 SCRA 1 , 692 Phil. 147 , A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC	The issue arose from a Commission on Audit (COA) Opinion finding an underpayment by five retired Supreme Court Justices who purchased personal properties (mostly vehicles) assigned to them during their tenure. The COA contested the valuation formula used by the Supreme Court's Property Division, which was based on the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. 35, insisting that a different COA formula should have been applied. This prompted the Supreme Court's Office of Administrative Services to seek clarification from the Court En Banc regarding the proper formula.	The Judiciary's constitutional fiscal autonomy grants it full flexibility to allocate and utilize its resources, including the authority to determine the manner and conditions for the disposal of its property, such as setting the appraisal formula for items purchased by retiring Justices, free from external interference or substitution of policy by the Commission on Audit.	Constitutional Law I
Madriaga, Jr. vs. China Banking Corporation (25th July 2012)	AK464752 677 SCRA 560 , 691 Phil. 770 , G.R. No. 192377	The dispute originated from a sale of properties by Spouses Trajano to Madriaga, Sr., followed by complications involving a mortgage with Asia Trust Bank, an execution sale in favor of Madriaga, Sr., and a subsequent mortgage with China Bank that led to foreclosure.	The petition is denied because the case was rendered moot and academic by the full implementation of the writ of possession, and the issuance of the ex parte writ of possession did not violate the petitioner's right to due process.	Constitutional Law II
Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council (17th July 2012)	AK960332 676 SCRA 579 , 691 Phil. 173 , G.R. No. 202242	After Chief Justice Renato Corona’s removal in May 2012, petitioner Francisco Chavez (a nominee for Chief Justice) challenged the JBC’s composition. The JBC had included two congressional representatives since 1994, initially splitting one vote and later granting each a full vote.	The JBC’s practice of allowing two congressional representatives (one from the Senate and one from the House) violated Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates only “a representative of Congress” as an ex-officio member.	Statutory Construction
Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc (4th July 2012)	AK931594 675 SCRA 744 , 690 Phil. 321 , G.R. No. 189755	In 1978, F.G.R. Sales, the original subdivision developer, assigned rights to Ernesto Marcelo due to financial obligations. Marcelo assured government agencies that water facilities were available in the subdivision. The water facility on Lot 11, Block 5 became the sole water source for residents for over 30 years. In 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block 5 to Hermogenes Liwag. After his death, Emeteria Liwag demanded the removal of the water tank, prompting the homeowners' association to file a case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).	The Supreme Court affirmed that Lot 11, Block 5, as the site of the subdivision's water facility, is part of the required "open space" under Presidential Decree No. 957 and reserved for public use. The sale of the lot was void, and an easement for the water facility existed for the benefit of the community.	Statutory Construction
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary (13th June 2012)	AK617262 672 SCRA 27 , 687 Phil. 24 , A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC	The case arose from initial requests by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in 2009 for the 2008 SALNs and PDS/CVs of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices to update their database on government officials. Following these initial requests, numerous similar petitions were filed by various media outlets, organizations, individuals, and even government offices (like the Ombudsman and Malacañang seeking comment on a bill) for SALNs and other personal documents of judiciary members covering different years, spurred by interests in transparency, governance reporting, academic research, impeachment proceedings, and general public information.	Access to the SALNs, PDS, and CVs of members of the Judiciary is generally allowed pursuant to the right to information, but this right is not absolute and must be regulated to protect judicial independence and the security of judicial officers; thus, requests are subject to specific guidelines including proper filing, statement of legitimate purpose, limitations on the scope of documents released, potential requirement for En Banc approval (for appellate court Justices), and verification of the requester's identity and record.	Constitutional Law I
Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic (25th April 2012)	AK198765 671 SCRA280 , 686 Phil. 980 , G.R. No. 189434	This case involves the Republic's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the Marcoses during their time in power, specifically focusing on assets held by Arelma, S.A.	The assets of Arelma, S.A. are considered ill-gotten wealth and are rightly forfeited to the Republic; the Sandiganbayan did not err in granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.	Constitutional Law II
Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. vs. University of the Philippines (18th April 2012)	AK644609 670 SCRA 206 , 686 Phil. 191 , G.R. No. 185918	The case stems from a labor dispute between security guards and their employers, Lockheed and UP. After winning their case for unpaid wages and benefits, the security guards sought to execute the judgment. This led to the garnishment of UP's funds in a PNB account. UP contested this garnishment, arguing that the funds were public funds and thus exempt from execution without going through the proper channels.		Constitutional Law I
Luz vs. People (29th February 2012)	AK520853 683 Phil. 399 , G.R. No. 197788	The case arose from a routine traffic stop where a police officer flagged down the petitioner for driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a violation of a Naga City ordinance.	A stop for a minor traffic violation, particularly one punishable only by a fine like failing to wear a motorcycle helmet under a city ordinance, does not inherently constitute a lawful custodial arrest that justifies a subsequent warrantless search incidental to arrest; evidence obtained from such an illegal search is inadmissible.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs. Santamaria (7th February 2012)	AK339749 665 SCRA 189 , 681 Phil. 198 , G.R. No. 185572	The case revolves around the Northrail Project, a railway construction project in the Philippines. CNMEG, a Chinese corporation, was contracted to construct the railway. When the respondents filed a complaint to annul the contracts, CNMEG claimed immunity from suit as an agent of the Chinese government. The case progressed through various courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court to determine whether CNMEG was immune from suit and whether the Contract Agreement was an executive agreement.		Constitutional Law I
Villareal vs. People (1st February 2012)	AK884025 664 SCRA 519 , 680 Phil. 527 , G.R. No. 151258 , G.R. No. 154954 , G.R. No. 155101 , G.R. No. 178057 , G.R. No. 178080	Lenny Villa, a law student at Ateneo de Manila University, died during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity in February 1991. The initiation involved physical beatings and psychological pressure, leading to Villa's death from cardiac failure due to multiple traumatic injuries. The case led to the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law in 1995.	The Supreme Court found the accused fraternity members guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, emphasizing that the death of Lenny Villa was the cumulative effect of the physical injuries inflicted during the initiation rites. The Court also dismissed the case against Artemio Villareal due to his death, extinguishing his criminal liability.	Philosophy of Law
Commissioner of Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds Corporation (1st February 2012)	AK490989 664 SCRA 666 , 680 Phil. 681 , G.R. No. 179579	Hypermix Feeds Corporation challenged CMO No. 27-2003, which classified wheat imports as either food grade (3% tariff) or feed grade (7% tariff) based on factors like importer identity, country of origin, and port of discharge. Hypermix argued that the regulation unfairly classified its wheat as feed grade despite being food grade, subjected it to higher tariffs, and violated constitutional rights.	CMO No. 27-2003 was declared unconstitutional for violating procedural due process, substantive due process, and the equal protection clause. It also exceeded the Commissioner of Customs' delegated authority.	Statutory Construction
Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. vs. Spouses Tan (30th January 2012)	AK756215 680 Phil. 395 , G.R. No. 154670	Respondent spouses purchased two class "D" shares of stock in petitioner Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. (FRCCI) from petitioner RN Development Corporation (RNDC), allegedly enticed by promises of first-class leisure facilities at Fontana Leisure Park (FLP) to be fully operational by the first quarter of 1998, and specific accommodation privileges. Disputes arose when respondents experienced difficulties in availing their free accommodations and perceived the FLP development as incomplete and the club rules as obscure and changing.	A contract of sale cannot be annulled or rescinded for alleged fraud or default if the party seeking such relief fails to establish by full, clear, and convincing evidence the existence of dolo causante or a substantial and fundamental breach that defeats the object of the parties in making the agreement; mere negligence, while not justifying rescission, may entitle the aggrieved party to nominal damages.	Obligations and Contracts
Alma Jose vs. Javellana (25th January 2012)	AK630213 664 SCRA 11 , 680 Phil. 10 , G.R. No. 158239	The dispute originated from a 1979 Deed of Conditional Sale where Margarita Marquez Alma Jose sold two parcels of land to Ramon Javellana. Payment was partially made upfront, with the balance due upon registration under the Torrens System, an obligation Margarita undertook. After Margarita and her son/attorney-in-fact Juvenal died, the obligation fell upon her daughter and sole heir, Priscilla Alma Jose, who allegedly failed to comply and instead started developing the properties, prompting Javellana to sue for specific performance.	An order denying a motion for reconsideration of a final order (such as an order dismissing a case) is itself a final order and thus appealable; the aggrieved party is entitled to a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the denial order within which to file the notice of appeal, pursuant to the "fresh period rule" established in _Neypes v. Court of Appeals_, which applies retroactively to pending cases.	Civil Procedure I
People vs. Trestiza (16th November 2011)	AK906974 660 SCRA 407 , 676 Phil. 420 , G.R. No. 193833	The Supreme Court affirmed that police officers can be held liable for kidnapping when they act in their private capacity rather than in furtherance of official functions, upholding the conviction of PO1 Trestiza and his co-accused for kidnapping for ransom.		Criminal Law II
Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines (18th October 2011)	AK191813 659 SCRA 270 , 675 Phil. 316 , G.R. No. 196271 , G.R. NO. 196305 , G.R. NO. 197221 , G.R. NO. 197282 , G.R. NO. 197392 , G.R. NO. 197454	RA No. 10153 reset the August 2011 ARMM elections to May 2013 to align with national and local polls. Petitioners challenged the law, claiming it violated ARMM’s autonomy, legislative processes, and the constitutional requirement for elective regional positions.	RA No. 10153 is constitutional; the synchronization of ARMM elections with national elections and the President’s power to appoint interim officials (OICs) are valid under the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction
Barayuga vs. Adventist University of the Philippines (17th August 2011)	AK907241 655 SCRA 640 , G.R. No. 168008	The Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) is a non-stock, non-profit domestic educational institution. Petitioner Petronilo J. Barayuga was appointed President of AUP by its Board of Trustees. Subsequent external and internal audits revealed alleged irregularities in his management style and financial transactions, leading the Board to consider his removal. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of his removal and the length of his term as President.	An injunctive relief protects only a right in esse; where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate an existing right to be protected by injunction, the suit for injunction must be dismissed for lack of a cause of action. The petitioner's term of office as President of AUP was for two years as per AUP's amended By-Laws, not five years, and by the time of his removal, he was already serving in a hold-over capacity.	Civil Procedure I