Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 628 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc. (28th August 2007)	AK150634 531 SCRA 436 , G.R. No. 162155	The case originated from a claim for a tax refund by Primetown Property Group, Inc. (Primetown) for taxes paid in 1997. Due to the Asian Financial Crisis, the real estate industry slowed down, causing Primetown to suffer significant losses for that year. Despite these losses, the company had paid quarterly corporate income taxes and remitted creditable withholding taxes. Believing it was not liable for income tax due to its net loss, Primetown filed an administrative claim for a refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which was not acted upon, prompting the company to seek judicial relief.	A "year" for the purpose of computing legal periods is understood to be twelve calendar months, as provided in Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which has impliedly repealed the definition of a "year" as 365 days under Article 13 of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Statutory Construction Article 13, Civil Code
Cemco Holdings, Inc. vs. National Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc. (7th August 2007)	AK555743 529 SCRA 355 , 556 Phil. 198 , G.R. NO. 171815	Cemco Holdings acquired shares in Union Cement Holdings Corporation (UCHC), a non-listed company holding 60.51% of Union Cement Corporation (UCC), a publicly listed firm. This indirect acquisition increased Cemco’s beneficial ownership in UCC from 17.03% to 53%. National Life Insurance, a minority UCC shareholder, demanded Cemco comply with the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule. After Cemco refused, National Life filed a complaint with the SEC.	The Supreme Court affirmed that the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule under the Securities Regulation Code applies to indirect acquisitions of shares in a publicly listed company, protecting minority shareholders. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction to order Cemco Holdings to conduct a tender offer after it acquired indirect control of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) through purchasing shares in its holding company.	Statutory Construction
National Electrification Administration vs. Morales (24th July 2007)	AK115653 528 SCRA 79 , 555 Phil. 74 , G.R. No. 154200	Danilo Morales and other employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) filed a class suit against NEA for the payment of various allowances and longevity pay purportedly authorized under Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Classification Act of 1989). The RTC granted their petition, ordering NEA to settle their claims.	A judgment directing a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) to "settle the claims" of its employees is a special judgment for the performance of an act other than the payment of a specific sum of money, and its execution cannot be enforced through garnishment; furthermore, even if a GOCC's funds can generally be garnished, a claim for payment of a judgment award against it must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can proceed.	Constitutional Law I
Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD (29th June 2007)	AK712617 526 SCRA 130 , 553 Phil. 120 , G.R. No. 166494	Petitioners, drugstore owners, questioned the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, which provides senior citizens with a 20% discount on medicines, arguing that the provided tax deduction mechanism does not fully reimburse them and results in financial losses, amounting to confiscation of property without just compensation. They contended that it violates their rights to due process and equal protection and the constitutional mandate to make essential goods available at affordable cost.	Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is constitutional as it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate the constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or constitute unjust taking of private property.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC (4th May 2007)	AK522247 551 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 177271 , G.R. NO. 177314	The case arose from the upcoming May 14, 2007 party-list elections. Various groups filed manifestations of intent to participate, and some were accredited by the COMELEC. Public perception grew that some individuals behind these accredited party-list groups did not genuinely represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Petitioners, concerned about the qualifications and sectoral representation of these nominees, sought the disclosure of their names from the COMELEC, which the latter refused, leading to these petitions.	The Commission on Elections has a constitutional duty to disclose to the public the names of party-list nominees, as this is a matter of public concern falling under the people's right to information; Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941, which states that "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list," only prohibits the inclusion of such names on the certified list posted in polling places on election day and does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure through other means before the election.	Constitutional Law I
Rev. Fr. Cayat vs. COMELEC (1st Div.) (24th April 2007)	AK957651 550 Phil. 209 , G.R. No. 163776 , G.R. No. 165736	Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat and Thomas R. Palileng, Sr. were candidates for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in the May 10, 2004 local elections. Cayat had been previously convicted by final judgment for Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness, a crime involving moral turpitude, and was under probation when he filed his certificate of candidacy. This conviction became the basis for Palileng's petition to disqualify Cayat.	A candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted; consequently, the candidate who is the sole remaining qualified candidate does not merely take second place but is the only placer and is entitled to be proclaimed.	Constitutional Law I
Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC (13th April 2007)	AK084300 549 Phil. 76 , G.R. No. 172103	The dispute arose from the allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives following the May 2004 National and Local Elections. After petitioner CIBAC was proclaimed as having qualified for one seat by receiving the required two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for party-list representatives, a controversy emerged regarding its entitlement to an additional seat, hinging on the correct formula for computation to be used by the COMELEC.	The correct and prevailing formula for computing additional seats for qualified party-list groups is the one established in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, which is: (Number of votes of concerned party / Number of votes of first party) x Number of additional seats allocated to the first party. A party-list group must obtain an exact whole number in this computation to be entitled to an additional seat; fractions are not rounded up.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Lacap (2nd March 2007)	AK609364 G.R. No. 158253 , 517 SCRA 255	The District Engineer of Pampanga initiated a public bidding for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare. Carlito Lacap, doing business as Carwin Construction and Construction Supply, was one of three pre-qualified contractors. After submitting the lowest bid, Lacap was awarded the contract by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). A formal Contract Agreement was executed, and Lacap proceeded with and completed the project. The dispute arose when the government, through the DPWH, refused to release the payment for the completed project upon the disapproval of the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA).	A contractor with an expired license who fully completes a government project is entitled to payment, as the Contractor's License Law (R.A. No. 4566) does not declare contracts entered into under such circumstances as void. The government cannot refuse payment and retain the benefits of the completed work, as this would constitute unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 22 of the Civil Code
Adasa vs. Abalos (19th February 2007)	AK799445 516 SCRA 261 , 545 Phil. 168 , G.R. No. 168617	The case originated from two complaints filed by Cecille S. Abalos against Bernadette L. Adasa for estafa, alleging that Adasa encashed two checks without her consent. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City found probable cause and filed criminal cases against Adasa. Adasa sought reinvestigation, and the DOJ later reversed the prosecutor's resolution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges. The trial court dismissed the case based on the DOJ's resolution, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Adasa to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court denied Adasa's petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment, as it violated DOJ Circular No. 70. The trial court's dismissal of the case was also void as it was based on the DOJ's void resolutions.	Statutory Construction
Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (27th October 2006)	AK270160 505 SCRA 654 , 536 Phil 511 , G.R. No. 159268	Josefina Hipolito-Herrero was hired by Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative in 1991. After closing a branch office in 1994, she resigned and later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering Balagtas to pay backwages, separation pay, and 13th-month pay. Balagtas appealed to the NLRC but refused to post the required bond, citing Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code. The NLRC and Court of Appeals rejected this argument.	Cooperatives are not exempt from posting an appeal bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code when appealing to the NLRC. The exemption in Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code applies only to appeals from decisions of inferior courts (e.g., municipal or regional trial courts), not quasi-judicial agencies.	Statutory Construction
Lambino vs. Commission on Elections (25th October 2006)	AK596385 505 SCRA 160 , 536 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 174153 , G.R. No. 174299	The petitioners, led by Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado, sought to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative by collecting signatures from registered voters. They filed a petition with the COMELEC requesting a plebiscite to ratify their proposed amendments. COMELEC dismissed their petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to allow an initiative for constitutional amendments. The petitioners then sought recourse with the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court ruled that the initiative petition filed by the Lambino Group was fatally defective because it failed to comply with constitutional requirements. It also reaffirmed the Santiago v. COMELEC ruling that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II
Golangco vs. Fung (16th October 2006)	AK531157 504 SCRA 321 , G.R. No. 147640 , G.R. No. 147762	The case arises from complaints about excessive placement fees charged by recruitment agencies for overseas employment, leading to investigations by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce labor laws against illegal recruitment practices, including non-transferability of recruitment licenses.	A public officer's warrantless arrest during a legitimate entrapment operation, based on reasonable belief of violation of labor laws prohibiting unauthorized recruitment activities, does not constitute administrative offenses like oppression or grave misconduct when performed in good faith, though courts lack jurisdiction to review Ombudsman findings of probable cause in criminal cases.	Civil Procedure II Rule 43
Aquino vs. Quezon City (3rd August 2006)	AK382783 497 SCRA 497 , 529 Phil. 486 , G.R. No. 137534 , G.R. No. 138624	G.R. No. 137534 (Aquino Case): The Aquino spouses' 612-square meter lot in East Avenue Subdivision, Diliman, Quezon City, was sold in 1984 for non-payment of property taxes from 1975 to 1982. They withheld payment as a protest against the Marcos regime. G.R. No. 138624 (Torrado Case): A 407-square meter property at No. 20 North Road, Cubao, Quezon City, owned by Solomon Torrado, was sold in 1983 due to unpaid property taxes from 1976 to 1982. Notices were sent to an insufficient address, "Butuan City," causing them to be undelivered.	The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the auction sales, ruling that the notice requirements under P.D. No. 464 were sufficiently complied with. The Court emphasized that personal service of notice via registered mail satisfies the legal requirements even if the notice was not personally received. Constructive notice through compliance with statutory procedures was deemed adequate.	Statutory Construction
Sevilla vs. Cardenas (31st July 2006)	AK546972 497 SCRA 428 , 529 Phil. 419 , G.R. No. 167684	Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas were married in civil rites on May 19, 1969, and in a church ceremony on May 31, 1969. Jaime later filed a complaint for the nullity of their marriage, claiming that no marriage license was issued for their union. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the present petition.	The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision that the marriage between Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas was valid, as the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar did not conclusively prove the absence of a marriage license.	Philosophy of Law
Rufino vs. Endriga (21st July 2006)	AK344369 528 Phil. 473 , G.R. No. 139554	Presidential Decree No. 15 created the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) as a non-municipal public corporation governed by a Board of Trustees. PD 15, as amended, provided that vacancies in the Board were to be filled by election by a majority of the remaining trustees. Only if the Board became entirely vacant could the President of the Philippines fill such vacancies. This case arose from a dispute between a group of trustees appointed by then-President Joseph E. Estrada (Rufino group) and the incumbent trustees (Endriga group) who claimed their terms had not yet expired and that vacancies should be filled according to PD 15.	Section 6(b) and (c) of Presidential Decree No. 15, as amended, are unconstitutional insofar as they authorize the remaining trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines Board to fill vacancies in the Board by election, as this mechanism infringes upon the President's constitutional power of appointment and power of control.	Constitutional Law I
Preysler, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (11th July 2006)	AK116882 494 SCRA 547 , 527 Phil. 129 , G.R. No. 158141	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.	The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the original writ of preliminary injunction (maintaining status quo). However, the Supreme Court recognized the petitioner's need for temporary easement for construction purposes under Article 656 of the Civil Code and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the proper indemnity for this temporary right of way. The installation of power lines was deemed a permanent easement not covered by the temporary easement provisions.	Property and Land Law
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma (30th June 2006)	AK754720 526 Phil. 550 , G.R. No. 138965	The case arose from the appointment of Magdangal B. Elma to two significant government positions: first as Chairman of the PCGG and subsequently, during his tenure there, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. This dual appointment raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and violations of constitutional provisions designed to prevent officials from holding multiple public offices, particularly given the distinct and potentially overlapping or conflicting responsibilities of the two roles.	The concurrent appointments of an individual as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) are unconstitutional because the two offices are incompatible, violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law I
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	AK431336 492 SCRA 1 , 525 Phil. 110 , A.M. No. P-02-1651	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.	The State failed to demonstrate a compelling interest that would justify infringing upon the respondent's fundamental right to the free exercise of her religion, and failed to show that the means adopted was the least restrictive; therefore, the respondent's conjugal arrangement, sanctioned by her religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness, cannot be penalized as disgraceful and immoral conduct, and she is entitled to an exemption based on her right to religious freedom.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Freedom of Religion
Mirasol, et al. vs. Department of Public Works and Highways and Toll Regulatory Board (8th June 2006)	AK762874 523 Phil. 713 , G.R. NO. 158793	The case arose from the implementation of various administrative orders and regulations issued over several decades by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its predecessors, aiming to regulate traffic on limited access highways, commonly known as tollways or expressways. Specifically, these issuances involved restrictions and prohibitions on the use of motorcycles on these facilities, prompting challenges from motorcycle riders regarding the issuing body's authority and the constitutionality of the restrictions.	The authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities (tollways) under Republic Act No. 2000, originally vested in the Department of Public Works and Communications, was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) by Executive Order 546 in 1979; consequently, subsequent issuances by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) regulating such access are void for lack of authority, while regulations issued by the predecessor department prior to the transfer remain valid if consistent with the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	AK973659 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	On February 24, 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies by political opposition, leftist insurgents (NDF-CPP-NPA), and military adventurists to overthrow the government, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued PP 1017, declaring a state of national emergency. This declaration cited threats to the democratic Philippine State, including plots to unseat or assassinate the President, magnified by certain media segments, and actions adversely affecting the economy and national security. On the same day, G.O. No. 5 was issued to implement PP 1017, directing the AFP and PNP to suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These issuances followed a series of events, including the escape of Magdalo Group members, discovery of "Oplan Hackle I" (a plot for bombings and assassinations), recapture of Lt. San Juan with subversive documents, alleged defection plans within the PNP-SAF, and confessions by military officers about plans to join anti-Arroyo protests.	The President has the constitutional power to declare a state of national emergency and call out the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. However, such a declaration does not authorize the President to (1) issue decrees, (2) direct the AFP to enforce laws unrelated to suppressing lawless violence, (3) impose prior restraint on the press, or (4) take over privately-owned public utilities or businesses affected with public interest without legislative authority under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution. General Order No. 5 is constitutional in providing a standard for the AFP and PNP to implement PP 1017, but its reference to undefined "acts of terrorism" is unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	AK395231 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 case arose from various Senate inquiries into matters of public concern, including the North Luzon Railways (NorthRail) Project, the "Gloriagate Scandal" involving alleged electoral fraud and wiretapping, and the fertilizer fund scam. Several executive officials invited to these hearings declined to attend, citing E.O. 464, which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued on September 28, 2005. This prompted multiple petitioners, including the Senate, legislators, and public interest groups, to challenge the constitutionality of E.O. 464 before the Supreme Court.	Executive Order No. 464 is unconstitutional in part: Sections 2(b) and 3 are void because they allow executive officials to evade congressional inquiries without a specific and properly invoked claim of executive privilege by the President or the Executive Secretary (by order of the President), thereby unduly infringing upon the legislative power of inquiry. Section 1 is valid when construed to apply only to the Question Hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22, Constitution), and Section 2(a) is valid as an internal guideline for the executive department concerning information that may be considered privileged.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Star Paper Corporation vs.Simbol (12th April 2006)	AK657436 521 Phil. 364 , G.R. No. 164774	Petitioner Star Paper Corporation implemented a policy in 1995 stating that if two employees marry each other, one must resign. This policy also barred the hiring of new applicants who had relatives up to the third degree of relationship already employed by the company. The case arose when three regular employees, Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia, and Lorna E. Estrella, were affected by this policy or related circumstances leading to their separation from the company.	A company policy prohibiting spouses from working in the same company (no-spouse policy) is illegal and constitutes marital discrimination unless the employer can prove that the policy is founded on a reasonable business necessity and that the qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved.	Obligations and Contracts
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Floro, Jr. (31st March 2006)	AK855285 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	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.	The Supreme Court ruled to relieve Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of his functions as Judge of RTC Branch 73, Malabon City due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that rendered him unfit to discharge judicial functions, while awarding him back wages for 3 years on equitable grounds.	Philosophy of Law
Antonio vs. Reyes (10th March 2006)	AK471421 484 SCRA 353 , G.R. No. 155800	Petitioner Leonilo Antonio and respondent Marie Ivonne Reyes met in August 1989 and married in 1990. Their union produced a child who died five months after birth. The couple's relationship quickly deteriorated due to what the petitioner described as the respondent's unusual and deceitful behavior. After a brief separation and a failed attempt at reconciliation, the petitioner left the respondent for good in November 1991. This led him to file a petition for nullity of marriage, claiming that the respondent's constant and elaborate fabrications about her life were manifestations of a deep-seated psychological incapacity to assume the fundamental duties of marriage.	A party's pathological inability to abide by the truth, manifesting as a persistent and constant pattern of fabricating stories about one's self, occupation, and background, is a psychological incapacity that renders one incognitive of the essential marital obligations of mutual trust, respect, and fidelity, and thus constitutes a valid ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 36, Family Code
Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Industries, Inc. (20th February 2006)	AK861204 518 Phil. 103 , G.R. No. 164171 , G.R. No. 164172 , G.R. No. 168741	On December 12, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 156, "Providing for a Comprehensive Industrial Policy and Directions for the Motor Vehicle Development Program and its Implementing Guidelines." Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO 156 prohibited the importation into the country, inclusive of the Subic Bay Freeport, of all types of used motor vehicles, subject to limited exceptions. This was intended to rationalize the importation of used motor vehicles and enhance the competitiveness of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry. Respondents, entities operating within the Subic Bay Freeport and engaged in the business of importing and trading used motor vehicles, challenged this provision.	Article 2, Section 3.1 of Executive Order No. 156, prohibiting the importation of used motor vehicles, is valid and constitutional in its application to the Philippine territory outside the secured area of the Subic Bay Freeport, but it is ultra vires and void in its application to the presently secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area (the "Secured Area" of the Subic Bay Freeport as defined in EO 97-A), because such application exceeds the President's delegated authority and unreasonably modifies the freeport status established by RA 7227.	Constitutional Law I
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Verchez (31st January 2006)	AK180962 481 SCRA 384 , G.R. No. 164349	On January 21, 1991, Editha Hebron Verchez was confined at the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital. Her daughter, Grace Verchez-Infante, sent an urgent telegram through RCPI to her sister, Zenaida Verchez-Catibog, in Quezon City, with the message "Send check money Mommy hospital." The purpose was to secure immediate financial aid for their mother's medical needs. The failure to receive a timely response caused distress and confusion within the family, leading them to believe Zenaida was ignoring their plea for help.	A telecommunications company that fails to deliver a telegram promptly due to its own negligence is liable for damages; its liability is based on _culpa contractual_ to the sender and quasi-delict to the intended recipient and other affected family members. Gross negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation, such as an inordinate delay without notifying the sender, amounts to bad faith and justifies the award of moral damages.	Persons and Family Law Article 26, New Civil Code
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PLDT (15th December 2005)	AK383011 478 SCRA 61 , 514 Phil. 255 , G.R. No. 140230	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.	PLDT’s “in lieu of all taxes” franchise clause exempts only direct taxes on its franchise/earnings, not indirect taxes like VAT; however, advance sales and compensating taxes collected during 1992–1994 were erroneous and refundable.	Statutory Construction
Agulto vs. Tecson (29th November 2005)	AK349241 476 SCRA 395 , 512 Phil. 760 , G.R. No. 145276	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.	Service of notice of pre-trial on the counsel of record (or on the party if they have no counsel) is mandatory under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; failure to serve such notice renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings null and void for violating the party's right to due process, and constitutes grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Exec. Secretary Ermita (13th October 2005)	AK992362 509 Phil. 567 , G.R. No. 164978	The case arose after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed several individuals as acting secretaries of various executive departments in August 2004, while the 13th Congress was in its regular session and the Commission on Appointments had already been constituted. Petitioners, who are members of the Senate, questioned the legality of these appointments, arguing they bypassed the confirmation process required by the Constitution.	The President of the Philippines has the constitutional and statutory power to appoint department secretaries in an acting capacity without the consent of the Commission on Appointments, even while Congress is in session, as such appointments are temporary measures to fill vacancies and ensure the continuous performance of executive functions.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Orbecido III (5th October 2005)	AK557171 G.R. No. 154380 , 472 SCRA 114	The case arose from a legal ambiguity concerning the application of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The provision's text appears to apply only to "mixed marriages" (between a Filipino and a foreigner at the time of celebration). This case presented a situation of first impression where a marriage was initially between two Filipino citizens, but one party later acquired foreign citizenship and obtained a divorce, raising the question of whether the remaining Filipino spouse was still bound by the marital tie under Philippine law.	Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code, which capacitates a Filipino spouse to remarry after their alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad, applies even if both parties were Filipino citizens at the time of marriage, provided that one spouse later becomes a naturalized foreign citizen and then secures the divorce decree; the reckoning point for the application of the provision is the citizenship of the parties at the time the valid divorce is obtained.	Persons and Family Law
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals (30th September 2005)	AK025163 508 Phil. 193 , G.R. No. 128959	The case arose from a criminal complaint for libel filed by Cirse "Choy" Torralba, a broadcast journalist with programs on radio stations DYLA and DYFX in Cebu City, which aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao. The complaint was against Segundo Lim, who paid for an advertisement, and Ciriaco "Boy" Guingguing, the editor-publisher of the Sunday Post, a weekly newspaper circulated in Bohol, Visayas, and Mindanao, where the advertisement was published.	A publication containing truthful information about criminal cases filed against a public figure, even if it tends to cause dishonor or discredit, is not libelous if it was not published with actual malice—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not—as such publication falls within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression concerning matters of public interest.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (1st September 2005)	AK134713 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	The enactment of Republic Act No. 9337 stemmed from the government's need to address a mounting budget deficit and generate significant revenue to stabilize the country's fiscal situation. The law aimed to restructure the Value-Added Tax (VAT) system by expanding its base, increasing the rate (with a standby authority for the President to raise it further), and introducing measures intended to improve tax administration and collection efficiency as part of a broader fiscal reform agenda.	Republic Act No. 9337 is constitutional; its enactment did not violate the procedural requirements of the Constitution regarding the origination of revenue bills or the amendment process, and its substantive provisions, including the President's standby authority to increase the VAT rate and the limitations on input tax credits, do not constitute undue delegation of legislative power, nor do they violate the due process, equal protection, uniformity, or progressivity clauses of the Constitution.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. vs. David (25th August 2005)	AK092221 468 SCRA 63 , 505 Phil. 181 , G.R. No. 129928	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.	A preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses pleaded in an answer, as provided under Section 5, Rule 16 of the old Rules of Court (now Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules), is not mandatory but rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court; its denial is not correctible by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. vs. Torres (29th July 2005)	AK371894 465 SCRA 47 , 503 Phil. 42 , G.R. No. 132527	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that portions of Executive Order No. 97-A and related issuances were unconstitutional for allowing tax-free removal of goods from the Subic Special Economic Zone to other parts of the Philippines and extending incentives to Clark Special Economic Zone without statutory basis.	Statutory Construction
Sen. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary (6th July 2005)	AK539131 501 Phil. 303 , G.R. No. 158088	The Philippines, through its Charge d' Affaires, signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 28, 2000. The Rome Statute establishes the ICC to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, and its provisions require ratification, acceptance, or approval by signatory states for it to become binding. Petitioners, concerned with human rights and the enforcement of international criminal law, urged the executive department to transmit the signed Statute to the Senate for its concurrence to complete the ratification process.	The President of the Philippines possesses the discretionary power to ratify treaties, including the decision of whether and when to submit a signed treaty to the Senate for concurrence; this act is not a ministerial duty compellable by a writ of mandamus.	Constitutional Law I
Herrera vs. Alba (15th June 2005)	AK188258 460 SCRA 197 , 499 Phil. 185 , G.R. No. 148220	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.	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)	AK058410 456 SCRA 577 , 496 Phil. 456 , G.R. No. 156171	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.	The Supreme Court held that the agreement was a contract to sell, and because the vendee failed to fully pay the purchase price, ownership of the property did not transfer to her. Consequently, the action for quieting of title filed by the vendors was deemed proper and not prescribed as they remained in possession and legal owners of the property.	Property and Land Law
National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals (13th April 2005)	AK266478 456 SCRA 17 , 495 Phil. 693 , G.R. NO. 148830	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.	The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court to order a joint survey by NHA and MSBF to determine the precise metes and bounds of the seven-hectare usufruct granted to MSBF, ensuring contiguity and inclusion of MSBF's major existing facilities as much as possible within that area, while also ensuring MSBF respects the seven-hectare limit and vacates any area exceeding it.	Property and Land Law
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. (12th April 2005)	AK416215 455 SCRA 308 , 495 Phil. 289 , G.R. No. 118127	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.	Ordinance No. 7783 is an invalid exercise of police power because it violates the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and exceeds the regulatory powers granted to the City of Manila under the Local Government Code.	Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction Police Power
Soria vs. Desierto (31st January 2005)	AK603974 450 SCRA 339 , 490 Phil. 749 , G.R. Nos. 153524-25	The Supreme Court upheld the time-honored practice of non-interference in preliminary investigations conducted by prosecutory bodies absent grave abuse of discretion, affirming that Sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in computing the periods prescribed in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.		Criminal Law II
Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan (19th October 2004)	AK604656 440 SCRA 578 , 483 Phil. 601 , G.R. No. 132164	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.	The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and while Belagan was guilty of grave misconduct, his long service and unblemished record warranted a modified penalty of one-year suspension without pay instead of dismissal.	Philosophy of Law
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc (17th September 2004)	AK533184 481 Phil. 687 , G.R. No. 162994	The case arose from the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry where companies like Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) and Astra Pharmaceuticals (Astra) are direct competitors. Glaxo implemented a policy, reflected in its employment contracts and Employee Code of Conduct, requiring employees to disclose relationships with employees of competitor companies and, if a conflict of interest is perceived, to explore solutions including transfer or resignation. This policy was intended to safeguard Glaxo's trade secrets, marketing strategies, and other confidential information.	A company policy prohibiting employees from marrying employees of competitor companies, aimed at preventing conflicts of interest and protecting trade secrets, is a valid exercise of management prerogative and does not violate the equal protection clause or the right to marry, provided it is reasonable and applied impartially.	Obligations and Contracts
Baloloy vs. Hular (9th September 2004)	AK688555 438 SCRA 80 , 481 Phil. 398 , G.R. No. 157767	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.	The petition is granted. The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are reversed and set aside. The complaint of the respondent is dismissed. The respondent failed to implead indispensable parties and failed to prove his claim of ownership by preponderance of evidence sufficient to overcome the petitioners' Torrens title.	Property and Land Law
People vs. Comadre (8th June 2004)	AK679022 431 SCRA 366 , 475 PHIL. 293 , G.R. No. 153559	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.	A single act, such as detonating a hand grenade, that results in death (Murder) and injuries (Attempted Murder) constitutes a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC, punishable with the penalty for the most serious crime (Murder) applied in its maximum period; when both treachery and explosion attend the killing, explosion qualifies the crime to Murder if it was the principal means employed, while treachery is considered a generic aggravating circumstance. Conspiracy must be proven by positive acts of cooperation beyond mere presence or relationship, and absent such proof, co-accused cannot be held liable.	Criminal Law II Murder
Ong vs. Mazo (4th June 2004)	AK982901 431 SCRA 56 , 474 Phil. 807 , G.R. No. 145542	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.	A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed after the effectivity of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC benefits from the fresh 60-day period counted from the notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration, even if the original period under the prior rule (Circular No. 39-98) had partially lapsed; furthermore, denying a party the use of written interrogatories based on the outdated notion that it constitutes a "fishing expedition" is a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari, as modes of discovery are liberally granted to enable parties to obtain relevant facts and expedite proceedings.	Civil Procedure I Discovery
Tecson vs. Commission on Elections (3rd March 2004)	AK663881 424 SCRA 277 , 468 Phil. 421 , G.R. No. 161434 , G.R. No. 161634 , G.R. No. 161824	The cases arose in the lead-up to the May 10, 2004 national elections, following the filing of a certificate of candidacy for President by respondent Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), wherein he declared himself a natural-born Filipino citizen.	The Supreme Court's jurisdiction as the sole judge of presidential election contests under Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is limited to post-election disputes and cannot be invoked to rule on a candidate's qualifications before the election; challenges to a candidate's qualifications based on alleged material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy fall under the COMELEC's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, reviewable by the Supreme Court via certiorari, where the petitioner must prove not just falsity but deliberate misrepresentation.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (18th February 2004)	AK750372 423 SCRA 272 , G.R. No. 150758	The case arose from the multiple marriages contracted by petitioner Veronico Tenebro. He first married Hilda Villareyes in 1986. While this marriage was subsisting, he married Leticia Ancajas in 1990. After Tenebro left Ancajas to cohabit with his first wife, he contracted a third marriage with Nilda Villegas in 1993. Upon learning of the third marriage, Ancajas verified the existence of the first marriage and subsequently filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against Tenebro for contracting their marriage (the second one) while his first marriage was still valid.	A subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of its celebration for the purpose of extinguishing criminal liability for bigamy; the crime is consummated upon the very act of contracting a second marriage while a prior marriage is still valid and subsisting.	Persons and Family Law
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections (21st January 2004)	AK379108 420 SCRA 438 , 465 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. 148334	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.	The Supreme Court held that the special election to fill the Senate vacancy was validly held, and COMELEC’s failure to give formal notice did not invalidate the election. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.	Philosophy of Law
Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) (13th January 2004)	AK712428 419 SCRA 82 , G.R. No. 146731	The dispute arose in the context of workplace tensions at the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College of Fisheries Technology, where Enemecio, as a utility worker, accused Bernante, an assistant professor, of professional misconduct including defamatory acts and falsifying leave records to conceal his incarceration for slight physical injuries, amid retaliatory filings between parties involving school officials, highlighting issues of administrative accountability and the proper use of government employee leave benefits under Philippine civil service regulations.	A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the Ombudsman's dismissal of a criminal complaint must be filed directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, as the latter lacks jurisdiction over such matters under Republic Act No. 6770; furthermore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for falsification of public documents, as no law requires disclosure of the specific purpose or location for using earned leave credits, and thus no untruthful narration of facts occurred under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.	Civil Procedure II Rule 65
People vs. Suzuki (23rd October 2003)	AK996295 414 SCRA 43 , G.R. No. 120670	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.	The Supreme Court held that routine airport security procedures constitute a valid exception to the constitutional protection against warrantless searches and seizures. Persons may lose this protection due to reduced privacy expectations associated with air travel. When these procedures reveal contraband, and the accused is caught in flagrante delicto, both the warrantless search and subsequent arrest are valid. However, in imposing penalties for drug possession, courts must apply the lesser of two indivisible penalties when there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.	Criminal Law II