Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Preysler, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (11th July 2006)	494 SCRA 547, 527 Phil. 129, G.R. No. 158141	This case concerns a dispute over right of way between a property owner (Petitioner) whose land is surrounded by a subdivision and the subdivision owner (Respondent). The Supreme Court reviewed a Court of Appeals decision regarding a preliminary injunction related to access through the subdivision roads. The Court clarified the nature of preliminary injunction as maintaining status quo, distinguished between temporary and permanent easements, and ultimately remanded the case to the trial court to determine the indemnity for a temporary easement.	Petitioner owned landlocked parcels adjacent to Respondent's Tali Beach Subdivision, needing access through the subdivision roads. Respondent initially allowed access but later barricaded the property. Petitioner sought a right of way and preliminary injunction. The trial court initially granted a preliminary injunction to remove barricades and allow passage. This was later amended to include passage for contractors, equipment, and power line installation.	Property and Land Law
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	492 SCRA 1, 525 Phil. 110, A.M. No. P-02-1651	This resolution addresses an administrative complaint against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, for alleged disgraceful and immoral conduct due to her cohabitation with a man not her husband, which contravenes Philippine law but aligns with the practices of her religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Reaffirming its prior ruling establishing benevolent neutrality and the compelling state interest test as the applicable framework, the Supreme Court, after remand for evidentiary hearing, found that the State (represented by the Solicitor General) failed to prove a compelling interest sufficient to override Escritor's constitutionally protected right to religious freedom and failed to demonstrate the use of the least restrictive means. Consequently, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Escritor.	The case arose from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, alleging that her living arrangement with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.—a man married to another woman—constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct tarnishing the image of the judiciary. Escritor, a widow whose own husband was previously estranged, admitted the cohabitation but claimed it conformed to the religious doctrines and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, formalized through a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" approved by her congregation, as Quilapio faced legal impediments to remarriage. This created a conflict between state laws penalizing such relationships and Escritor's constitutional right to religious freedom.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	489 SCRA 160, 522 Phil. 705, G.R. No. 171396, G.R. No. 171409, G.R. No. 171485, G.R. No. 171483, G.R. No. 171400, G.R. No. 171489, G.R. No. 171424	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 and General Order (G.O.) No. 5, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006, which declared a state of national emergency. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of presidential powers during emergencies, the validity of the declaration, and the actions taken pursuant to it, ultimately finding portions of the issuances unconstitutional while upholding the President's calling-out power.	In February 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies to destabilize the government, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, directing the AFP and Philippine National Police (PNP) to maintain law and order, prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These actions led to arrests, dispersal of rallies, and a raid on a newspaper office, prompting several petitions questioning the constitutionality of the President's actions.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	488 SCRA 1, 522 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 169777, G.R. No. 169659, G.R. No. 169660, G.R. No. 169667, G.R. No. 169834, G.R. No. 171246	The Supreme Court partially granted petitions challenging Executive Order No. 464, declaring Sections 2(b) and 3 void while upholding Sections 1 and 2(a). The case examined the constitutionality of E.O. 464 which required executive officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries, balancing executive privilege against Congress' power of inquiry and the public's right to information.	The case arose from several Senate investigations where executive officials failed to appear, citing E.O. 464 which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued requiring executive department officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries. This led to multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Floro, Jr. (31st March 2006)	486 SCRA 66, 520 Phil. 591, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988	A landmark administrative case involving a Regional Trial Court judge who was ultimately relieved of his functions due to a medically disabling condition of the mind, while being awarded back wages on equitable grounds despite his role in delaying case resolution.	The case centers on Judge Florentino V. Floro Jr.'s fitness to serve as a judge of the Regional Trial Court. After withdrawing his first application in 1995 due to concerning psychological evaluations, he reapplied in 1998 and was appointed despite similar psychological concerns, mainly due to his impressive academic background. Upon his own request for an audit in March 1999, various issues about his conduct came to light, leading to his preventive suspension by July 1999, merely eight months into his position. The Office of the Court Administrator filed administrative charges against him, encompassing 13 different allegations ranging from procedural violations to fundamental concerns about his mental fitness, particularly given his proclaimed beliefs in psychic powers, dwarf friends, and unusual practices like wearing colored robes in court. The case became a landmark decision addressing the intersection of mental fitness, judicial temperament, and the limits of personal beliefs in judicial service.	Philosophy of Law
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PLDT (15th December 2005)	478 SCRA 61, 514 Phil. 255, G.R. No. 140230	The Supreme Court partially granted the BIR Commissioner’s petition, ruling that PLDT’s franchise tax under RA 7082 did not exempt it from indirect taxes (e.g., VAT) on importations but allowed a refund for erroneously collected advance sales and compensating taxes, minus unpaid VAT.	PLDT sought a tax refund/credit for indirect taxes paid on imported equipment, citing Section 12 of RA 7082. The BIR and lower courts disagreed on whether the franchise’s “in lieu of all taxes” clause covered indirect taxes.	Statutory Construction
Agulto vs. Tecson (29th November 2005)	476 SCRA 395, 512 Phil. 760, G.R. No. 145276	This case involves a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a petition for certiorari, which questioned the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) order allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte and the subsequent judgment against petitioners due to their failure to appear at a pre-trial hearing. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because petitioners' counsel was not served with a formal notice of the pre-trial as required by the Rules of Court, rendering the subsequent proceedings void for violation of due process, and held that certiorari was the appropriate remedy given the patent nullity of the RTC's orders.	Respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners Rolando Agulto, Maxima Agulto, Cecille Tenorio, and Maribel Mallari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, alleging malicious prosecution.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (1st September 2005)	469 SCRA 14, 506 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 168056, G.R. No. 168207, G.R. No. 168461, G.R. No. 168463, G.R. No. 168730	This case involves a constitutional challenge against Republic Act No. 9337 (Expanded Value Added Tax Law), particularly provisions allowing the President to increase the VAT rate from 10% to 12% based on specific economic conditions. The Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality, ruling that it did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power.	Republic Act No. 9337 (Expanded VAT Law) was enacted to address the Philippines’ fiscal deficit by increasing government revenue through an expanded VAT system. Several petitions challenged its constitutionality, particularly the provisions authorizing the President to increase the VAT rate, arguing that this was an undue delegation of legislative power.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. vs. David (25th August 2005)	468 SCRA 63, 505 Phil. 181, G.R. No. 129928	This case involves a petition for review seeking the reversal of a Court of Appeals decision which upheld a trial court's denial of petitioner MOELCI II's motion for a preliminary hearing on its affirmative defenses, particularly the defense of failure to state a cause of action. Respondent David sued MOELCI II for specific performance and damages based on an alleged contract (Annex "A") for the sale of a transformer, which MOELCI II claimed was merely a quotation letter. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that preliminary hearings on affirmative defenses are discretionary and that the determination of whether a complaint states a cause of action must be based solely on the allegations within the complaint and its annexes, hypothetically admitting their truth.	Respondent Virgilio S. David, a supplier of electrical hardware, entered into a transaction with petitioner Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MOELCI II) concerning the supply of a 10 MVA Power Transformer. A dispute arose regarding the nature of the document governing the transaction and MOELCI II's alleged failure to pay the agreed price, leading David to file a suit for specific performance and damages.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. vs. Torres (29th July 2005)	465 SCRA 47, 503 Phil. 42, G.R. No. 132527	This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain executive issuances that allowed tax and duty-free privileges within the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) and Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ). Petitioners argued that these issuances constituted executive lawmaking, violated the equal protection clause, and were contrary to Republic Act No. 7227. The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, declaring certain provisions invalid for exceeding statutory authority while upholding others as consistent with legislative intent.	Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) aimed to convert former U.S. military bases into productive economic zones to promote development in Central Luzon. It created the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) with tax incentives but did not explicitly extend these privileges to other zones like Clark. Several executive issuances, including Executive Orders No. 80 and 97-A, sought to implement these incentives in both SSEZ and CSEZ, prompting legal challenges from businesses outside these zones.	Statutory Construction
Herrera vs. Alba (15th June 2005)	460 SCRA 197, 499 Phil. 185, G.R. No. 148220	This case involves a petition for review to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's orders directing Rosendo Herrera to undergo DNA paternity testing. The petitioner, Rosendo Herrera, opposed the DNA test, arguing it violated his right against self-incrimination and lacked legal acceptance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions and recognizing DNA testing as a valid probative tool in paternity cases.	DNA paternity testing is a valid and admissible method to establish filiation in paternity suits, provided that proper procedures are followed, and it does not violate the right against self-incrimination.	Philosophy of Law
Portic vs. Cristobal (22nd April 2005)	456 SCRA 577, 496 Phil. 456, G.R. No. 156171	This case involves a dispute over ownership of property stemming from a contract to sell. The Supreme Court determined that the agreement between the parties was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, because ownership was explicitly reserved by the vendors (Spouses Portic) until full payment of the purchase price by the vendee (Cristobal). Since full payment was not made, the Court ruled that ownership remained with the vendors and upheld their action to quiet title, reversing the Court of Appeals decision which favored the vendee.	Spouses Portic sold property to Anastacia Cristobal under an agreement that included conditions about payment of a balance. A dispute arose when Cristobal registered the title in her name despite allegedly not fully paying the balance, and Spouses Portic sought to quiet title, claiming the sale was void due to non-payment.	Property and Land Law
National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals (13th April 2005)	456 SCRA 17, 495 Phil. 693, G.R. NO. 148830	This case involves a dispute over the location and extent of a seven-hectare usufruct granted to Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. (MSBF) within a larger property owned by the National Housing Authority (NHA). Bulacan Garden Corporation (BGC), leasing a portion from MSBF, sought to enjoin NHA's demolition of its facilities. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a joint survey to definitively determine the boundaries of MSBF's usufructuary area, emphasizing MSBF's right to choose the location within the larger property but also its responsibility to respect the seven-hectare limit.	President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 481 reserving a 120-hectare NHA-owned land for the National Government Center (NGC). Later, Proclamation No. 1670 segregated seven hectares from the NGC and granted MSBF usufructuary rights over it, to be determined by future survey. MSBF occupied an area exceeding seven hectares and leased a portion to BGC. NHA, under Memorandum Order No. 127 which revoked the reserved status of the remaining 50 hectares, sought to demolish BGC's facilities, leading BGC to file for injunction.	Property and Land Law
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. (12th April 2005)	455 SCRA 308, 495 Phil. 289, G.R. No. 118127	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, declaring Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila, which prohibited the operation of certain businesses providing specific forms of amusement, entertainment, services, and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area, as unconstitutional and void due to its infringement on due process, equal protection, and for being ultra vires.	Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the validity of Ordinance No. 7783, which included motels and inns among the prohibited establishments in the Ermita-Malate area, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the City Council's powers.	Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Soria vs. Desierto (31st January 2005)	450 SCRA 339, 490 Phil. 749, G.R. Nos. 153524-25	The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal of a complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the delivery of detained persons) against police officers, holding that Sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in computing the period within which arrested persons should be delivered to judicial authorities.		Criminal Law II
Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan (19th October 2004)	440 SCRA 578, 483 Phil. 601, G.R. No. 132164	The case involves Dr. Allyson Belagan, a Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS), who was accused of sexual harassment by Magdalena Gapuz and Ligaya Annawi. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) found Belagan guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court reinstated the CSC's decision but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay, considering Belagan's long service and unblemished record.	Dr. Allyson Belagan, a Superintendent of DECS in Baguio City, was accused of sexual harassment by Magdalena Gapuz, a private school teacher, and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher. Gapuz alleged that Belagan kissed her during an inspection of her school premises, while Annawi accused him of multiple instances of sexual harassment and other administrative malfeasances. The DECS conducted an investigation and found Belagan guilty, leading to his dismissal. The CSC affirmed the DECS decision regarding Gapuz but dismissed Annawi's complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, prompting the CSC to appeal to the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Baloloy vs. Hular (9th September 2004)	438 SCRA 80, 481 Phil. 398, G.R. No. 157767	This case involves a petition for review on certiorari regarding a land dispute. Alfredo Hular filed a complaint to quiet title and for reconveyance of land, claiming ownership through his father's acquisition and acquisitive prescription. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court decisions, finding that Hular failed to implead indispensable parties (his siblings and the Republic of the Philippines) and failed to sufficiently prove his claim of ownership against the Torrens title of the Baloloys.	Alfredo Hular claimed ownership of land originally owned by his father, Astrologo Hular, part of Lot No. 3347. He alleged that Iluminado Baloloy fraudulently secured a Free Patent and OCT over Lot No. 3353, which included a portion of his father's land (later found to be 1,405 square meters, not 287 sqm as initially thought). Hular sought to quiet title, nullify the Baloloy's OCT, and reconveyance, citing prior ownership and acquisitive prescription. Baloloys, heirs of Iluminado, argued their title's sanctity and Hular's lack of cause of action.	Property and Land Law
People vs. Comadre (8th June 2004)	431 SCRA 366, 475 PHIL. 293, G.R. No. 153559	This case involves an automatic review of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision convicting Antonio Comadre, George Comadre, and Danilo Lozano of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing them to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence only for Antonio Comadre, finding sufficient evidence that he threw the grenade that killed one victim and injured others, qualifying the crime as Murder by means of explosion under Article 248(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and applying the complex crime rule under Article 48. However, the Court acquitted George Comadre and Danilo Lozano due to insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy, ruling their mere presence at the scene was not enough. The Court also clarified the non-applicability of R.A. 8294 in this instance and modified the awarded damages.	The case arose from an incident where victims were having a drinking session on the terrace of a house when the appellants allegedly stopped in front, and one of them, Antonio Comadre, lobbed a hand grenade onto the roof, which subsequently exploded, causing death and injuries.	Criminal Law II Murder
Ong vs. Mazo (4th June 2004)	431 SCRA 56, 474 Phil. 807, G.R. No. 145542	This case involves a petition for review challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a petition for certiorari on procedural grounds (timeliness) and, ultimately, addresses the propriety of the trial court's denial of the petitioner's motion to compel respondents to answer written interrogatories in a damages suit arising from a vehicular accident. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the certiorari petition was timely filed based on the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, and further held that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the written interrogatories, emphasizing the importance and liberal use of discovery mechanisms under the Rules of Court.	The case originated from a vehicular accident where a passenger bus owned by petitioner Elena S. Ong and driven by Iluminado J. Caramoan allegedly bumped a jeep owned and driven by respondent Elvira C. Lanuevo, who had respondent Charito A. Tomilloso as a passenger. This incident led respondents Lanuevo and Tomilloso to file a complaint for damages against Ong and Caramoan.	Civil Procedure I Discovery
Tecson vs. Commission on Elections (3rd March 2004)	424 SCRA 277, 468 Phil. 421, G.R. No. 161434, G.R. No. 161634, G.R. No. 161824	The case revolves around the disqualification of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) as a presidential candidate in the 2004 elections due to questions regarding his citizenship. Petitioners alleged that FPJ was not a natural-born Filipino citizen, but the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petitions, ruling that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification case.	The case arose when Victorino X. Fornier filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ from running for president, alleging that FPJ was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, and Fornier, along with other petitioners, elevated the case to the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections (21st January 2004)	420 SCRA 438, 465 Phil. 385, G.R. No. 148334	The case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Senators Ralph Recto and Gregorio Honasan. Petitioners sought to nullify COMELEC Resolutions proclaiming the winners of the 2001 senatorial elections, particularly the 13th placer, Honasan, who was to serve an unexpired term. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the special election was validly held and that COMELEC’s failure to give formal notice did not invalidate the election.	Following the appointment of Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President in 2001, a Senate vacancy arose. The Senate passed a resolution calling for a special election to fill the vacancy, to be held simultaneously with the May 14, 2001, regular elections. The 13th placer in the senatorial race would serve the unexpired term. Petitioners challenged the validity of the special election, arguing that COMELEC failed to comply with legal requirements.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Suzuki (23rd October 2003)	414 SCRA 43, G.R. No. 120670	A case concerning illegal possession of marijuana where the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, highlighting important principles about airport security searches and constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.	The case stems from an airport security check at Bacolod Airport where the defendant, a Japanese national, was found in possession of marijuana concealed in a box of "Bongbong's piaya." The case raises important questions about the constitutionality of airport security searches and the rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.	Criminal Law II
Allied Domecq Phil., Inc. vs. Villon (12th August 2003)	439 SCRA 667, 482 Phil. 894, G.R. No. 156264	A case involving jurisdiction over injunctive relief regarding operations within the Clark Special Economic Zone, where the Supreme Court affirmed that under Republic Act No. 7227, only it has the authority to issue injunctions concerning projects for the conversion of military reservations into alternative productive uses.	This case originated from a distributorship agreement between Allied Domecq Philippines Inc. (ADPI) and Pedro Domecq, S.A. of Spain for the exclusive distribution of "Fundador" brandy in the Philippines. When Clark Liberty Warehouse imported the brandy without BFAD certification, ADPI sought injunctive relief, leading to a jurisdictional dispute that reached the Supreme Court.	Civil Procedure I
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (21st July 2003)	407 SCRA 10, 454 Phil. 504, G.R. No. 104768	This jurisprudential analysis scrutinizes the Republic of the Philippines' petition for certiorari aimed at overturning the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of a forfeiture case against Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano. The focal issue pertains to the jurisdictional authority of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) concerning its investigative and prosecutorial powers over military officials allegedly involved in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, particularly absent definitive affiliations with the Marcos administration.	In the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution, President Corazon Aquino established the PCGG to spearhead the recovery of assets unlawfully acquired during the Marcos regime. The AFP Anti-Graft Board, under the PCGG's directive, initiated an inquiry into the financial dealings of Major General Ramas, uncovering properties and assets allegedly disproportionate to his lawful income. The investigation extended to Elizabeth Dimaano, purportedly Ramas' mistress, in whose possession substantial monetary sums and military-grade equipment were discovered. This led to a forfeiture petition grounded on the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Forfeiture Law (RA No. 1379).	Philosophy of Law
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc (15th July 2003)	406 SCRA 178, 453 Phil. 1043, G.R. No. 150947	The Supreme Court ruled that pawnshops are not classified as “lending investors” under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and thus not subject to a 5% percentage tax on gross income. The Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91 and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 imposing the tax were declared invalid.	The BIR sought to impose a 5% lending investor’s tax on pawnshops through administrative issuances (RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91). Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop challenged the assessment, arguing pawnshops were distinct from lending investors and the BIR overstepped its rulemaking authority.	Statutory Construction
Buena Obra vs. Social Security System (9th April 2003)	401 SCRA206, 449 Phil. 200, G.R. No. 147745	The Supreme Court ruled that Maria Buena Obra’s claim for employees’ compensation benefits for her husband’s work-related death due to myocardial infarction was not time-barred and was compensable, reversing lower court decisions that denied her claim based on prescription and lack of causal connection.	Juanito Buena Obra, a dump truck driver for 24 years, died of a heart attack at work in 1988. His widow filed for SSS death benefits but learned about EC benefits a decade later. The SSS/ECC rejected her claim, alleging prescription and lack of work connection.	Statutory Construction
Yau vs. Manila Banking Corporation (11th July 2002)	384 SCRA 340, 433 Phil. 701, G.R. No. 126731, G.R. No. 128623	This consolidated case involves twin petitions questioning separate Court of Appeals decisions concerning a proprietary share in Manila Golf and Country Club owned by Ricardo Silverio, Sr. Esteban Yau, a judgment creditor of Silverio, purchased the share at an execution sale but faced challenges because the share was already under preliminary attachment by The Manila Banking Corporation (Manilabank) in cases pending before the RTC Makati. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals' decisions, holding that the RTC Cebu City lacked jurisdiction to order the cancellation and issuance of a new certificate for the share already under custodia legis of RTC Makati, but upheld Yau's right to intervene in the RTC Makati case to protect his interest as purchaser of the attached share.	Esteban Yau obtained a final judgment against Ricardo Silverio, Sr. from RTC Cebu. The only known asset of Silverio was a proprietary share in Manila Golf and Country Club. This share, however, was already subject to preliminary attachments obtained by Manilabank in separate collection cases against Silverio pending before RTC Makati. This created a conflict when Yau, after purchasing the share at the execution sale ordered by RTC Cebu, sought to have the title transferred to his name.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu vs. Province of Cebu (29th November 2001)	371 SCRA 196, 422 Phil. 519, G.R. No. 141386	This case involves the issue of whether the salaries and personnel-related benefits of public school teachers hired for extension classes, as well as college scholarship grants, can be charged to the Special Education Fund (SEF) of Cebu Province. The Supreme Court ruled that while the salaries and benefits of teachers for extension classes are chargeable to the SEF, expenses for college scholarships are not and must be charged to the province's General Fund.	The case arose from Notices of Suspension issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) to Cebu Province after it charged teacher salaries and scholarship expenses to its SEF. The province filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in favor of Cebu Province. COA elevated the case to the Supreme Court.	Statutory Construction
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (19th November 2001)	369 SCRA 394, 421 Phil. 290, G.R. No. 148560	The case involves former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s constitutional challenge against Republic Act No. 7080 (the Plunder Law), arguing that it is vague and violates his rights to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is constitutional, upholding the validity of the plunder charges against him.	Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the former President of the Philippines, was charged with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth exceeding Php 50 million through various illegal means. He challenged the law’s constitutionality, claiming it was vague, abolished the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and did away with the element of mens rea.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals (4th September 2001)	364 SCRA 334, 416 Phil. 722, G.R. No. 125359	This case involves Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera's petition challenging the denial of their motion to quash several criminal cases for violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts denying the motion to quash, finding no grave abuse of discretion and ruling that the repeal of Circular No. 960 did not extinguish criminal liability due to saving clauses in subsequent circulars.	The case arose from multiple criminal charges filed against Benedicto and Rivera for failing to report foreign exchange earnings as required by Central Bank Circular No. 960. The petitioners argued that their liability was extinguished due to the circular's repeal and other defenses such as prescription and immunity under a compromise agreement with the government.	Statutory Construction
Estrada vs. Desierto (2nd March 2001)	353 SCRA 452, 406 Phil. 1, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, G.R. No. 146738	This case revolves around the contested presidency of Joseph Ejercito Estrada following the events of EDSA II. Estrada argued that he was merely on temporary leave and had not resigned as President, while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who assumed the presidency, maintained that Estrada's resignation was clear. The Supreme Court held that Estrada had effectively resigned based on his actions and public statements, affirming Arroyo's presidency.	Joseph Estrada’s presidency began in 1998 with broad public support but was marred by corruption allegations, including his involvement in illegal gambling operations (jueteng). A series of political and public upheavals culminated in his impeachment trial, which was aborted after senators voted to suppress key evidence. Massive public protests followed, leading to the withdrawal of military and police support for Estrada and the ascension of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.	Constitutional Law I
Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals (1st February 2001)	351 SCRA 44, 403 Phil. 760, G.R. No. 128448	This case concerns sugarland owners seeking an accounting from PNB and PHILEX regarding the proceeds of sugar sales under Presidential Decree No. 579. The Supreme Court addresses the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579, the validity of foreclosure and dacion en pago, and the applicability of piercing the corporate veil, ultimately affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.	The Mirasols, as sugarland owners, had their sugar production financed by PNB. P.D. No. 579 authorized PHILEX to purchase export sugar, with PNB financing the purchases. Disputes arose regarding the accounting of sugar sale proceeds, leading to litigation.	Constitutional Law II
Cruz vs. Secretaryof Environment and Natural Resources (6th December 2000)	347 SCRA 128, 400 Phil. 904, G.R. No. 135385	This case involves a constitutional challenge to Republic Act No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. The petitioners, led by retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz, argued that the law was unconstitutional because it granted ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples, contrary to the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court issued a deadlocked vote (7-7), resulting in the dismissal of the petition and the upholding of the law.	The case was brought by legal scholars and constitutionalists who questioned whether indigenous groups could hold ownership rights over natural resources traditionally deemed as part of the State’s patrimony under the Regalian Doctrine. The petitioners sought a declaration of unconstitutionality for various provisions of the IPRA, arguing that they violated the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on State ownership of public lands and natural resources.	Philosophy of Law
Del Mar vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (29th November 2000)	346 SCRA 485, 400 Phil. 307, G.R. No. 138298, G.R. No. 138982	The Supreme Court ruled that PAGCOR’s legislative franchise under Presidential Decree No. 1869 does not include the authority to operate jai-alai games. Petitioners, as legislators and taxpayers, challenged PAGCOR’s jai-alai operations, arguing it lacked a valid franchise. The Court granted the petitions, enjoining PAGCOR and its partners from managing jai-alai.	PAGCOR began operating jai-alai in 1999 based on legal opinions from the DOJ, OSG, and OGCC. Petitioners contested this, alleging PAGCOR exceeded its franchise. The cases were consolidated due to overlapping constitutional and statutory issues.	Statutory Construction
People vs. Velasco (13th September 2000)	340 SCRA 207, 394 Phil. 517, G.R. No. 127444	A case that examines the doctrine of double jeopardy in the context of a government appeal from an acquittal, ultimately reaffirming that an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy.	In San Ildefonso, Bulacan, a shooting incident resulted in the death of Alex Vinculado and serious injuries to his twin brother Levi and uncle Miguel Vinculado Jr. Honorato Galvez (town mayor) and Godofredo Diego (municipal employee) were charged with murder, frustrated murder, and illegal possession of firearms. After trial, Diego was found guilty while Galvez was acquitted. The government challenged the acquittal.	Philosophy of Law
Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora (15th August 2000)	338 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 141284, 392 Phil. 618	The Supreme Court dismissed the IBP's petition challenging the constitutionality of President Estrada's order deploying Philippine Marines to Metro Manila for joint visibility patrols with the PNP, finding that the President did not gravely abuse his discretion and that the deployment did not violate civilian supremacy.	Due to rising crime rates in Metro Manila, President Estrada verbally ordered the PNP and Marines to conduct joint patrols. This directive was formalized in a Memorandum and Letter of Instruction (LOI). The IBP then filed a petition questioning the deployment's constitutionality.	Constitutional Law II
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong (14th March 2000)	328 SCRA 137, 384 Phil. 676, G.R. No. 135087	The Supreme Court ruled that a local government unit (LGU) must enact an ordinance—not merely pass a resolution—to validly exercise eminent domain under the Local Government Code. The City of Mandaluyong’s attempt to expropriate private property for a medical center expansion using a resolution was declared invalid.	The City of Mandaluyong sought to expropriate Alberto Suguitan’s property for expanding the Mandaluyong Medical Center using a 1994 resolution. Suguitan challenged this, arguing it violated procedural requirements under the Local Government Code.	Statutory Construction
Liang vs. People (28th January 2000)	323 SCRA 692, G.R. No. 125865	The Philippine Supreme Court denied immunity to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) economist charged with grave oral defamation, ruling that criminal acts like slander fall outside official duties protected by international agreements. The Court emphasized due process for the prosecution and confirmed that preliminary investigations aren’t required for cases within Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) jurisdiction.	Jeffrey Liang, an ADB employee, was charged with defaming a colleague. The MeTC initially dismissed the case based on a DFA protocol letter asserting immunity, but the RTC reversed this decision.	Statutory Construction
Miranda vs. Abaya (28th July 1999)	311 SCRA 617, 370 Phil. 642, G.R. No. 136351	The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the substitution of Joel G. Miranda as mayoralty candidate in Santiago City after his father, Jose "Pempe" Miranda, was disqualified. The Court held that substitution was not allowed because Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy was denied due course and canceled, making his candidacy void ab initio. Consequently, the votes for Joel Miranda were considered stray, and the issue of succession was governed by the Local Government Code.	Jose "Pempe" Miranda, the incumbent mayor of Santiago City, sought reelection despite having already served the maximum of three consecutive terms. Antonio M. Abaya filed a petition to deny due course and/or cancel Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy, which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted on May 5, 1998. Despite this, Joel G. Miranda filed a certificate of candidacy on May 6, 1998, claiming to be a substitute candidate for his father.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Quiñanola (5th May 1999)	306 SCRA 710, G.R. No. 126148	This case involves an appeal from a Regional Trial Court decision convicting accused-appellants Agapito Quiñanola and Eduardo Escuadro of frustrated rape. The Supreme Court reviewed the entire case, reiterated that the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent under Philippine law, found the victim's testimony credible despite medico-legal findings of an intact hymen, determined that the slightest penetration (touching of the labia) constitutes consummated rape, established conspiracy between the appellants, and ultimately found both appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated rape, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua for each count.	The case arose from the alleged rape of a 15-year-old girl, Catalina Carciller, by two armed men, Agapito Quiñanola and Eduardo Escuadro, in Dumanjug, Cebu, on the night of March 5, 1994. The appellants allegedly accosted the victim and her companions, separated her from them, and took turns sexually assaulting her at gunpoint.	Criminal Law II Rape
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals (23rd February 1999)	303 SCRA 508, 363 Phil. 130, G.R. No. 107135	The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals’ decisions, ruling that sales taxes paid by Central Vegetable Manufacturing Co., Inc. (CENVOCO) on containers and packaging materials for its milled products could be credited against its deficiency miller’s tax, as packaging materials are not “raw materials used in the milling process” under Section 168 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).	CENVOCO, a manufacturer of coconut oil and related products, paid sales taxes on containers and packaging materials for its edible oil in 1986. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) later assessed a deficiency miller’s tax and disallowed the sales tax credit, leading CENVOCO to challenge the assessment. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of CENVOCO, prompting the BIR to appeal to the Supreme Court.	Statutory Construction
Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice (19th January 1999)	297 SCRA 754, 361 Phil. 73, G.R. No. 132601	A landmark case addressing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to temporarily restrain the execution of a death convict and the constitutional limitations on Congress's power to impose the death penalty.	Leo Echegaray was sentenced to death under R.A. 7659. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on his execution to give Congress time to review the death penalty law. Public respondents challenged the Court's jurisdiction to issue such TRO.	Civil Procedure I Philosophy of Law
People vs. Santiano (3rd December 1998)	299 SCRA 583, G.R. No. 123979	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of four accused-appellants for kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, despite their being initially charged with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The Court ruled that even when evidence fails to support one component of a complex crime charge, conviction for the other proven offense remains legally feasible.		Criminal Law II
Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M. Realty Corporation (20th July 1998)	292 SCRA 678, 354 Phil. 684, G.R. No. 127820	The Supreme Court ruled that a local government unit (LGU) must pass an ordinance, not a mere resolution, to exercise the power of eminent domain under the Local Government Code (RA 7160). Additionally, the principle of res judicata does not forever bar the exercise of eminent domain if legal requirements are subsequently met.	The Municipality of Parañaque sought to expropriate private property owned by V.M. Realty Corporation for a socialized housing project. The complaint was filed based on a municipal council resolution, not an ordinance. Previously, a similar expropriation case involving the same property had been dismissed with prejudice.	Statutory Construction
Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (13th October 1997)	345 Phil. 810, G.R. No. 68166	This is a Resolution by the Supreme Court addressing an Omnibus Motion filed by the Heirs of Pascual seeking clarification, reconsideration, and remand of the Court's prior decision. The Court found no merit in the motion for reconsideration and remand but acknowledged and rectified typographical and clerical errors in its previous decision to harmonize the body and dispositive portion of the ruling.	The case involves a land dispute where the Heirs of Navarro originally filed a Petition for Review. The Supreme Court issued a Decision on February 12, 1997, which the Heirs of Pascual found confusing, particularly the dispositive portion in relation to the body of the decision regarding the public domain nature of the land. This confusion led to the Omnibus Motion seeking clarification, reconsideration, and remand.	Property and Land Law
People vs. Catantan (5th September 1997)	278 SCRA 761, 344 Phil. 315, G.R. No. 118075	This case involves the interpretation of piracy under PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974) versus grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for piracy after he and his companion seized a fishing boat through force and intimidation in Philippine waters.	On June 27, 1993, at around 3:00 AM, the Pilapil brothers were fishing in the seawaters of Tabogon, Cebu, when the accused and his companions approached their boat, boarded it using force and intimidation, and compelled them to ferry them to different locations. The accused later abandoned the victims after transferring to another vessel.	Criminal Law II
Arroyo vs. De Venecia (14th August 1997)	277 SCRA 268, 343 Phil. 42, G.R. No. 127255	Petitioners, members of the House of Representatives, challenged the validity of Republic Act No. 8240, which imposed "sin taxes" on beer and cigarettes, alleging that the law was passed in violation of House rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the alleged violations were internal procedural matters and not constitutional violations, and upheld the enrolled bill doctrine.	The case arose from the passage of R.A. No. 8240, which amended the National Internal Revenue Code to impose specific taxes on beer and cigarettes. Petitioners, members of the House of Representatives, claimed that the law was passed in violation of House rules, particularly regarding the approval of the conference committee report and the handling of quorum issues.	Statutory Construction
Sia vs. Court of Appeals (5th May 1997)	272 SCRA 141, 338 Phil. 652, G.R. No. 108222	This case revolves around an ejectment suit filed by Torre de Oro Development Corporation against Henry L. Sia, a lessee of their property. The core issue is whether Sia, as a lessee who constructed a building on the leased land, has the right to retain possession until reimbursed for the building's value, based on Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, or if his rights are limited to Article 1678 of the Civil Code governing lessees' improvements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Article 1678, not Articles 448 and 546, applies to lessees, thus denying Sia's right to retain possession and ordering his ejectment based on the expired lease contract.	Atty. Rodolfo N. Pelaez originally owned the land and leased it to Henry L. Sia's parents who built a structure on it with permission in 1970. After Rodolfo Pelaez passed away, the land was inherited by his son, Atty. Pacifico Pelaez, who then sold it to Torre de Oro Development Corporation. Henry L. Sia succeeded his parents as lessee. Torre de Oro Development Corporation and Sia entered into a new one-year lease contract in 1988. Upon expiry, the lessor decided not to renew the lease and sought to eject Sia, leading to this legal dispute concerning Sia's rights as a lessee with improvements on the land.	Property and Land Law
Santiago vs. Commission on Elections (19th March 1997)	270 SCRA 106, 336 Phil. 848, G.R. No. 127325	This case challenged the legality of a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution’s term limits for elected officials. The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6735 was insufficient to implement constitutional amendments via initiative, voided COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.	Private respondent Jesus Delfin filed a petition with the COMELEC to lift term limits for elected officials via people’s initiative under Article XVII of the Constitution. Petitioners, including Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, argued this required a specific enabling law, which Congress had not passed.	Statutory Construction
Apiag vs. Cantero (12th February 1997)	268 SCRA 47, 335 Phil. 511, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070	This administrative case involves Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero, who was charged with gross misconduct for allegedly committing bigamy and falsification of public documents. The complainants, Maria Apiag (his first wife) and their two children, accused him of abandoning them and marrying another woman without legally annulling his first marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that while the judge’s personal conduct was improper, his actions did not constitute gross misconduct in office, and the case was dismissed due to his death prior to the decision.	The case stems from a failed love affair between Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero and Maria Apiag, who married in 1947 and had two children. Judge Cantero later abandoned his family and married another woman, Nieves Ygay, without legally annulling his first marriage. The complainants accused him of bigamy and falsification of public documents, as he had listed Nieves Ygay as his spouse in official documents.	Philosophy of Law