Archive for June, 2016


CASE 2016-0033: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA (G.R. No. 200302, 20 APRIL 2016, CARPIO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: CIVIL LIABILITY/IES IN MURDER CASES WHERE ACCUSED DIES PRIOR TO FINAL JUDGMENT) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. LIPATA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04461. The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment.

 

Let a copy, of this Decision be forwarded to the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

We summarized our ruling in Bayotas as follows:

 

  1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.”

 

  1. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) x x x e) Quasi-delicts

 

  1. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.

 

  1. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible deprivation of right by prescription.30 (Emphases supplied)

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0033-LIPATA

 

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 2016-0032: MELECIO DOMINGO VS. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA,( G.R. NO. 200274, 20 APRIL 2016, BRION,J.:)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for review on certiorari. The decision dated August 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94160 is AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“It is well settled that when the trial court’s factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, the findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions.19 While there are exceptions20 to this rule, the Court finds no applicable exception with respect to the lower courts’ finding that the subject property was Anastacio and Flora’s conjugal property. Records before the Court show that the parties did not dispute the conjugal nature of the property.”

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0032-DOMINGO

 

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- 0031: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC VICE– PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER AND ATTY. CIPRIANO U. ASILO (G.R. NO. 205002; 20 APRIL 2016; DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: FORUM SHOPPING) (BRIEF TITLE: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ET AL. VS. PILIPINAS SHELL ET AL.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 11, 2012 and the Resolution dated August 28, 2012 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. EB Case No. 744 are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:       

 

SUPPOSE A PARTY SUBMITS A FALSE CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING.  WHAT IS THE OFFENSE COMMITTED?

 

EITHER INDIRECT CONTEMPT OR DIRECT CONTEMPT.

 

BASIS IS SECTION 5. RULE 7 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

 

WHEN WILL IT CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT?

 

WHEN THERE IS WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE COMMISSION OF FORUM SHOPPING.

 

HOW IS FORUM SHOPPING COMMITTED?

 

IN THREE WAYS:

 

(1) BY FILING MULTIPLE CASES BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION AND WITH THE SAME PRAYER, THE PREVIOUS CASE NOT HAVING BEEN RESOLVED YET (LITIS PENDENTIA);

  

(2)  BY FILING MULTIPLE CASES BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION AND [WITH] THE SAME PRAYER, THE PREVIOUS CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY RESOLVED (RES JUDICATA); OR  

 

(3)  BY FILING MULTIPLE CASES BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION BUT WITH DIFFERENT PRAYERS (SPLITTING OF CAUSES OF ACTION, WHERE THE GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IS ALSO EITHER LITIS PENDENTIA OR RES JUDICATA).52  

 

ARE THERE OTHER WAYS WHEN FORUM SHOPPING IS COMMITTED?

 

 YES, COROLLARILY WHEN:

 

A)  A PARTY SEEKS A FAVORABLE OPINION IN ANOTHER FORUM, OTHER THAN BY AN APPEAL OR BY CERTIORARI, AS A RESULT OF AN ADVERSE OPINION IN ONE FORUM;

 

B)  OR WHEN HE INSTITUTES TWO OR MORE ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS GROUNDED ON THE SAME CAUSE, HOPING THAT ONE OR THE OTHER COURT WOULD MAKE A FAVORABLE DISPOSITION ON HIS CASE.53

 

C) WHEN A PARTY REPEATEDLY AVAILS HIMSELF OF SEVERAL JUDICIAL REMEDIES IN DIFFERENT COURTS, [EITHER] SIMULTANEOUSLY OR SUCCESSIVELY, ALL [OF WHICH ARE] SUBSTANTIALLY FOUNDED ON THE SAME TRANSACTIONS AND THE SAME ESSENTIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ALL RAISING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ISSUES EITHER PENDING IN OR ALREADY RESOLVED ADVERSELY BY SOME OTHER COURT.”54

 

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF FORUM SHOPPING?

 

 (1) IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES OR, AT LEAST, OF THE PARTIES WHO REPRESENT THE SAME INTEREST IN BOTH ACTIONS;  

 

(2) IDENTITY OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED AND RELIEF PRAYED FOR, AS THE LATTER IS FOUNDED ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS; AND  

 

(3) IDENTITY OF THE TWO PRECEDING PARTICULARS, SUCH THAT ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE OTHER ACTION WILL AMOUNT TO RES JUDICATA IN THE ACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION OR WILL CONSTITUTE LITIS PENDENTIA.

 

IN THIS CASE AT HAND WHY IS THERE NO FORUM SHOPPING?

 

NONE BECAUSE THE THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE ISSUES INVOLVED, AND THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR ARE NOT THE SAME.

 

SAID THE COURT:

 

“In this case, a careful reading of the Verified Motion in the CTA case vis-àvis the Complaint for Injunction filed with the RTC of Batangas reveals that although both cases have the same parties, originated from the same factual antecedents, and involve Section 1508 of the TCCP, the subject matter, the cause of action, the issues involved, and the reliefs prayed for are not the same.  

 

The subject matter and the causes of action are not the same. 

 

The subject matter in the CTA case is the alleged unpaid taxes of respondent PSPC on its importation of CCG and LCCG for the years 2006 to 2008 in the total amount of P21,419,603,310.00, which is sought to be collected by petitioners.  On the other hand, the subject matter of the Batangas injunction case is the 13 importations/shipments of respondent PSPC for the period January to February 2010, which respondent PSPC claims are threatened to be seized by petitioners pursuant to the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 issued by petitioner District Collector.  

 

Also, the cause of action in the CTA case is based on the Letter-Decisions of petitioner COC, finding respondent PSPC liable for excise taxes and VAT; while the cause of action in the Batangas injunction case is the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010, ordering the personnel of petitioner BOC in the Port of Batangas to hold the delivery of all import shipments of respondent PSPC. 

 

The issues raised are not the same. 

 

Furthermore, the issues raised are not the same. Respondent PSPC filed the CTA case to assail the Letter-Decisions of petitioner COC, finding it liable to pay excise taxes and VAT on its importation of CCG and LCCG. Thus, in the Petition for Review, the main issue involved is the validity of the Letter-Decisions; while in the Verified Motion, the issue raised is respondent PSPC’s entitlement to a suspension order pending the resolution of the validity of the Letter-Decisions. 

 

On the other hand, respondent PSPC filed the Batangas injunction case to question the validity of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 and to oppose the seizure of the 13 importations/shipments on the ground that petitioners no longer have jurisdiction over the subject importations/shipments as these have been discharged and placed in its Batangas refinery since 90% of the import duties due on the said shipments have been paid. To support its case, respondent PSPC interposed that Section 1508 of the TCCP is available only if petitioner BOC has actual physical custody of the goods sought to be held, a situation not present in the case of the said importations/shipments; that petitioners have no reason to seize the 13 importations/shipments, as only two were CCG and only one was LCCG;

 

and that the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 deprives respondent PSPC of its property without due process of law. From the arguments interposed by respondent PSPC in the Batangas injunction case, it is clear that the issue to be resolved by the RTC is limited to the validity of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010. 

 

The reliefs prayed for are not the same. 

 

Likewise, a comparison of prayers in the CTA case and Batangas injunction case shows that the reliefs prayed for are not the same.”

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0031-PILIPINAS SHELL

 

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”.