J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0010: ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTANEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTANEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTANEZ VERSUS  JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTANEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES (G.R. NO. 184251, 30 MARCH 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE EXCLUDING HEIRS INVALIDATE SUBSEQUENT SALE; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE) (BRIEF TITLE: ESTATE OF ORTANEZ VS. JOSE C. LEE ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE KNOWINGLY EXCLUDING HEIRS IS INVALID. SUBSEQUENT SALE ALSO INVALID.

“We observed in the aforesaid decision that Juliana Ortafiez (Juliana) and her three sons invalidly entered into a Memorandum of Agreement extra-judicially partitioning the intestate estate among themselves, despite their knowledge that there were other heirs or claimants to the Estate and before the final settlement of the Estate by the intestate court. Since the appropriation of the estate properties was invalid, the subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and Lee to a third party (FLAG), without court approval, was likewise void.”

PETITIONERS FAILED TO PRESENT THE REQUIRED PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

“From the foregoing facts and based on a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that petitioners indeed failed to present the required preponderance of evidence to prove their allegation in the complaint that they represented more than 51 o/o of the outstanding capital stock of Philinterlife during the annual stockholders’ meeting held on 15 March 2006.

Clearly, the core issue to be resolved in the present case is simply on whether respondents were validly elected as Board of Directors during the annual stockholders’ meeting of Phi linter life held on 15 March 2006. We agree with the courts below that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the respondents were duly elected as directors/officers of Philinterlife during the aforesaid annual stockholders’ meeting. Petitioners cannot, in the instant election contest case, question the increases in the capital stocks of the corporation.”

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0010-ORTANEZ

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0009: CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. ET AL VS. MA. FLOR A. SINGZON AGUIRRE ET AL. (G.R. NOS. 170746-47, 09 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: PRESCRIPTION; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT; VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE TO RECEIPT OF SUMMONS) (BRIEF TITLE: CALTEX ET AL VS AGUIRRE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS PRESCRIPTION?

“The Court shall first discuss the prescription of the respondents’ cause of action against the petitioners.  Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides that “[b]y prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription.”  The first sentence refers to acquisitive prescription, which is a mode of “acquisition of ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions provided by law.”  The second sentence pertains to extinctive prescription “whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time.”38  It is also called limitation of action.39   This case involves the latter type of prescription, the purpose of which is to protect the diligent and vigilant, not the person who sleeps on his rights, forgetting them and taking no trouble of exercising them one way or another to show that he truly has such rights.40  The rationale behind the prescription of actions is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time when all the proper vouchers and evidence are lost or the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or defective memory or death or removal of witnesses.”

PRESCRIPTION CAN BE WAIVED BUT IT CAN NO LONGER BE WAIVED IF THERE IS ALREADY A FINAL JUDGMENT?

“The Court has previously held that the right to prescription may be waived or renounced pursuant to Article 1112 of the Civil Code:46

Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future.

Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.

In the instant case, not only once did the petitioners expressly renounce their defense of prescription.  Nonetheless, the Court cannot consider such waiver as basis in order to reverse the rulings of the courts below as the dismissal of the complaint had become final and binding on both the petitioners and the respondents.”

RESPONDENT CALTEX SAID THE FINAL JUDGMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SERVED SUMMONS. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO. THEIR FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONSTITUTES  VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE. THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION.

“It is not contested that the petitioners were not served with summons by the RTC of Catbalogan prior to the motu proprio dismissal of the respondents’ complaint.  It is basic that courts acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants or respondents, by a valid service of summons or through their voluntary submission.47  Not having been served with summons, the petitioners were not initially considered as under the jurisdiction of the court.  However, the petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves under the jurisdiction of the RTC of Catbalogan by filing their motion for reconsideration.   Section 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court states:

Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.  The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy Hong Pi, et al.,48 the Court explained the following:

(1)  Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2)  Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3)  Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.49”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0009-CALTEX

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0008: SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG VS. TEODORA F. CAMPO (G.R. NO. 21141, 16 MARCH 2016, REYES J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2013 and Resolution dated February 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124881 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum of the total monetary award is to be computed from the date of finality of this Resolution, until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM WAS FOUND FALSIFIED. BUT ASSUMING THERE WAS A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM DULY EXECUTED CAN THERE STILL BE AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL?

YES. EXECUTION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT DOES NOT FORECLOSE AN EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO PURSUE A CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

“Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “2”

CA GRANTED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM TO BE COMPUTED FROM DATE OF DISMISSAL. IS THIS CORRECT?

NO. THE 6% SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM DATE THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY UNTIL FULL SATISFACTION.

“CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29”

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE?

“Clearly then, given the vehement claim of the respondent that her signature on the resignation letter was a mere forgery, the evidence presented by the petitSUSSSioners to establish their defense of voluntary resignation failed to suffice.  Several other indicators cast doubt on the letter’s authenticity, as the NLRC itself cited in its Resolution dated November 29, 2011 that:  

As shown on records, the [respondent’s] original and genuine signature appeared for several times in her documents, evidence and pleadings x x x.  The signatures of the [respondent] therein manifest a similar stroke with an upper loop, downslide on the letter “t”, letters “c” and “a” not distinct from each other, downslide on the letter “p” and an upward loop on the letter “o”.  By a careful examination, the said signatures are far and different from the alleged [respondent’s] signatures on the “resignation letter, Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement and payslips” x x x presented by the [petitioners].  In the resignation letter in particular x x x, the letter “t” does not have an upper loop.  Also in the said documents x x x the letters “c” and “a” are distinct from each other, and the letter “p” x x x contains an outside downward loop which obviously differ from the original signature of the [respondent].  On the same tack, the [respondent] specifically denied under oath the genuineness of her signatures in the [petitioners’] documents as well as [their] truthfulness x x x.27 

The  foregoing  observations  of  the  NLRC  appeared  consistent  with  the PNP  Crime  Laboratory’s  report  that  the  signature  on  the  resignation letter  did  not  match  the  several  other  documents  supposedly  executed by  the  respondent.                                                               25  Id. at 219. 26  Id. 27 

The authenticity and due execution of the undated Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement purportedly signed by the respondent was also not sufficiently established. The QDR was not conclusive on the issue of its genuineness. Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “28

All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the CA’s finding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to reinstatement and monetary awards plus interest. The reckoning date for the computation of the awarded interest, however, needs to be modified after the CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29″

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0008-SILVERTEX

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.