J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0089: JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO and EDUARDO L. TAGLE VERSUS  THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA,HONORABLE JUDGE DANILO SANDOVAL, HONORABLE CITY PROSECUTOR CARLOS BALLELOS, BATANGAS II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., RUPERTO H. MANALO, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, LOURDES CRUZ, VIRGINIA BORJA, EDGAR DE GUZMAN AND RODULFO CANLAS (G.R. NO.  192925, 09 DEC 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECTS: SIMPLE ESTAFA; SYNDICATED ESTAFA; MEANING OF SYNDICATE; MEANING OF MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION, MEANING OF JURIDICAL POSSESSION) (BRIEF TITLE: REMO ET AL VS. HON. SECR OF JUSTICE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. We hereby render a decision as follows:

1. REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the decision dated 18 February 2010 and resolution dated 16 July 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.  110838;
2. SETTING ASIDE the resolution dated 28 July 2009 of the Secretary ·of the   Department of Justice in LS. Nos. 07-0552 to 0553 and DIRECTING the Secretary of Justice to issue a resolution dismissing the criminal complaint docketed as LS. Nos. 07-0552 to 0553 before the Office of City Prosecutor of Lipa City for lack of probable cause and lack of merit;
3. DIRECTING the incumbent Secretary of the Department of Justice to file motion to dismiss the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 0503-2007 and 0504-2007 with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12, and to ask for the LIFTING of the warrants of arrest issued against petitioners pursuant to the 7 October 2009 Order of the said RTC of Lipa City.

Let a copy of this Decision be served to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, of Lipa City for its consideration.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE COURT’S CONCLUSION?

“We hold that the CA erred when it found that the DOJ Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing 28 July 2009 resolution in I.S. Nos. 07-0552. In view of the absolute dearth of evidence supporting the finding of probable cause against petitioners, we indeed find that the said resolution had been the product of such abuse of discretion. Consequently, we must set aside the decision of the CA and direct the incumbent Secretary of Justice to withdraw the informations filed against petitioners pursuant to the 28 July 2009 resolution.

The warrants of arrest issued against petitioners in Criminal Case Nos. 0503-2007 and 0504-2007 must too be lifted, as a necessary consequence of the invalidity of the indictment against them.”

WHO COMMITS ESTAFA?

ANY PERSON WHO CAUSES PECUNIARY DAMAGE UPON ANOTHER THROUGH ANY OF THE ACTS OF ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OF DECEIT, AS ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE 315 OF THE RPC.

STATE ONE SUCH ACTS OF ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 315( 1 )(B) OF THE RPC.

“(B) BY MISAPPROPRIATING OR CONVERTING, TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANOTHER, MONEY, GOODS, OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY RECEIVED BY THE OFFENDER IN TRUST OR ON COMMISSION, OR FOR ADMINISTRATION, OR UNDER ANY OTHER OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE DUTY TO MAKE DELIVERY OF OR TO RETURN THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH SUCH OBLIGATION BE TOTALLY OR PARTIALLY GUARANTEED BY A BOND; OR BY DENYING HAVING RECEIVED SUEH MONEY, GOODS, OR OTHER PROPERTY.”

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF SUCH ESTAFA UNDER PAR. B?

1. THAT MONEY, GOODS OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY IS RECEIVED BY THE OFFENDER IN TRUST, OR ON COMMISSION, OR FOR ADMINISTRATION, OR UNDER ANY OTHER OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE DUTY TO MAKE DELIVERY OF, OR TO RETURN THE SAME;

2. THAT THERE BE MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION OF SUCH MONEY OR PROPERTY BY THE OFFENDER OR DENIAL ON HIS PART OF SUCH RECEIPT;

3. THAT SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION OR DENIAL IS TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANOTHER; AND

4. THAT THERE IS A DEMAND MADE BY THE OFFENDED PARTY ON THE OFFENDER.

WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS OF SYNDICATED ESTAFA?

SECTION 1 OF PD NO. 1689.

THE SAID SECTION READS:

SECTION 1. ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO SHALL COMMIT ESTAFA OR OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 315 AND 316 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY LIFE IMPRISONMENT TO DEATH IF THE SWINDLING (ESTAFA) IS COMMITTED BY A SYNDICATE CONSISTING OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS FORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF CARRYING OUT THE UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT, TRANSACTION, ENTERPRISE OR SCHEME, AND THE DEFRAUDATION RESULTS IN THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF MONEYS CONTRIBUTED BY STOCKHOLDERS, OR MEMBERS OF RURAL BANKS, COOPERATIVE, “SAMAHANG NAYON(S)”, OR FARMERS’ ASSOCIATIONS, OR OF FUNDS SOLICITED BY CORPORATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WHEN NOT COMMITTED BY A SYNDICATE AS ABOVE DEFINED, THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE SHALL BE.RECLUSION TEMPORAL TO RECLUSION PERPETUA IF THE AMOUNT OF THE FRAUD EXCEEDS 100,000 PESOS.

IN ESSENCE WHAT IS SYNDICATED ESTAFA?

IT IS THE  COMMISSION OF ANY KIND OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315 OF THE RPC (OR OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING UNDER ARTICLE 316) WITH TWO (2) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

ONE, THE ESTAFA OR SWINDLING WAS PERPETRATED BY A “SYNDICATE” AND

TWO, THE ESTAFA OR SWINDLING RESULTED IN THE “MISAPPROPRIATION OF MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY STOCKHOLDERS, OR MEMBERS OF RURAL BANKS, COOPERATIVE, SAMAHANG NAYON(S), OR FARMERS ASSOCIATION, OR OF FUNDS SOLICITED BY CORPORATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

WHAT IS THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE IN THIS CASE FOR SYNDICATED ESTAFA?

 BECAUSE PETITIONERS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A “SYNDICATE” UNDER PD NO. 1689.

WHY?

 AS STATED IN THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF SYNDICATED ESTAFA, THE ESTAFA MUST BE COMMITTED BY A “SYNDICATE” AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LAW.

PETITIONERS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SYNDICATE.

WHAT DOES THE TERM SYNDICATE MEAN?

IN PD NO. 1689, THE TERM SYNDICATE IS DESCRIBED AS:

“CONSISTING OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS FORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF CARRYING OUT THE UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT, TRANSACTION, ENTERPRISE OR SCHEME X X X.”

DOES THIS MEAN THAT FIVE CONSPIRING PERSONS WHO DEFRAUD ANY STOCKHOLDER OR MEMBER OF THE CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION COMMITS SYNDICATED ESTAFA?

NO.

THEY CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED SYNDICATE.

ACCORDING TO JURISPRUDENCE, THE FIVE OR MORE PERSONS  MUST USE THE ASSOCIATION THAT THEY FORMED OR MANAGED TO DEFRAUD ITS OWN STOCKHOLDERS, MEMBERS OR DEPOSITORS. THIS WAS THE RULING IN GALVEZ  VS. CA.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GALVEZ CASE?

IN GALVEZ, A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR SYNDICATED ESTAFA WAS FILED AGAINST FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE THE INTERLOCKING DIRECTORS OF TWO CORPORATIONS THAT PURPORTEDLY DEFRAUDED A COMMERCIAL BANK. ACTING ON SUCH COMPLAINT, THE CITY PROSECUTOR ISSUED A RESOLUTION FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT THE DIRECTORS FOR SIMPLE ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 3 L 5(2)(A) OF THE RPC, BUT NOT FOR SYNDICATED ESTAFA. THIS RESOLUTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED BY THE DOJ SECRETARY UPON REVIEW, BUT WAS ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED BY THE CA ON CERTIORARI. IN ITS APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE COMMERCIAL BANK RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CITY PROSECUTOR WAS CORRECT IN NOT CHARGING THE DIRECTORS WITH SYNDICATED ESTAFA.

GALVEZ RESOLVED THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. CITING THE TEXT OF SECTION I OF PD NO. 1689 AS WELL AS PREVIOUS CASES THAT APPLIED THE SAID LAW, GALVEZ DECLARED THAT IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AS A SYNDICATE UNDER PD NO. 1689, THE PERPETRATORS OF AN ESTAFA MUST NOT ONLY BE COMPRISED OF AT LEAST FIVE INDIVIDUALS BUT MUST HAVE ALSO USED THE ASSOCIATION THAT THEY FORMED OR MANAGED TO DEFRAUD ITS OWN STOCKHOLDERS, MEMBERS OR DEPOSITORS.

GALVEZ HELD THAT SINCE  THE DIRECTORS THEREIN WERE “OUTSIDERS” OR WERE NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE COMMERCIAL BANK WHOSE FUNDS THEY ALLEGEDLY MISAPPROPRIATED, THEY CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH SYNDICATED ESTAFA BUT ONLY OF SIMPLE ESTAFA UPDER ARTICLE 315(2)(A) OF THE RPC.

WHAT IS NOW THE STANDARDS BY WHICH A GROUP OF PURPORTED SWINDLERS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A SYNDICATE UNDER PD NO. 1689?

 1. THEY MUST BE AT LEAST FIVE (5) IN NUMBER;54

 2.THEY MUST HAVE FORMED OR MANAGED55 A RURAL BANK, COOPERATIVE, “SAMAHANG NAYON,” FARMER’S ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION THAT SOLICITS FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.56

3. THEY FORMED OR MANAGED SUCH ASSOCIATION WITH THE INTENTION OF CARRYING OUT AN UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT, TRANSACTION, ENTERPRISE OR SCHEME57 I.E., THEY USED THE VERY ASSOCIATION THAT THEY FORMED OR MANAGED · AS THE MEANS TO DEFRAUD ITS OWN STOCKHOLDERS, MEMBERS AND DEPOSITORS.58

IN THIS INSTANT CASE ARE THE PETITIONERS A SYNDICATE?

NO.

THEY DID NOT USE BATELEC II AS A MEANS TO DEFRAUD ITS MEMBERS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PETITIONERS MET THE FIRST AND SECOND STANDARDS UNDER GALVEZ: PETITIONERS ARE MORE THAN FIVE (5) IN NUMBER AND THEY, AS ITS DIRECTORS, HAD MANAGEMENT OF BATELEC II-AN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. WHAT IS LACKING ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS IS THE THIRD STANDARD. PETITIONERS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SYNDICATE UNDER PD NO. 1689, AS THEY NEVER USED BATELEC II AS A MEANS TO DEFRAUD ITS MEMBERS.

TO SATISFY THE THIRD STANDARD UNDER GALVEZ, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PURPORTED SWINDLERS USED THE VERY ASSOCIATION THEY FORMED OR MANAGED TO DEFRAUD ITS MEMBERS. SINCE THE ASSOCIATION CONTEMPLATED BY PD NO. 1689 MUST BE ONE THAT “SOLICIT[S] FUND FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC,” IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FRAUD COMMITTED THROUGH SUCH ASSOCIATION MUST PERTAIN TO ITS RECEIPT OF CONTRIBUTION OR SOLICITATION FROM ITS STOCKHOLDERS, MEMBERS OR THE PUBLIC. SUCH KIND OF FRAUD IS EVIDENTLY MISSING BECAUSE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF BATELEC II WERE PAID TO THE LATTER NOT OUT OF ANY FRAUDULENT ACT, TRANSACTION OR SCHEME BUT AS PAYMENTS FOR THE ELECTRICITY BEING SUPPLIED BY THE COOPERATIVE.

BUT PETITIONERS MIS-USED SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS. IS THIS NOT ESTAFA?

ANY ALLEGED MISUSE OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTED BY PETITIONERS WOULD MERELY BE AN ACT OF MISMANAGEMENT COMMITTED AGAINST IT.

WAS THERE SIMPLE ESTAFA?

NO, BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA ARE NOT PRESENT.

THE FIRST ELEMENT OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315( 1 )(B) OF THE RPC IS THAT THE OFFENDERS MUST HAVE RECEIVED MONEY, GOODS OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY

• IN TRUST (B) ON COMMISSION ( C) FOR ADMINISTRATION OR (D) UNDER ANY OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE DUTY TO MAKE DELIVERY OF, OR TO RETURN THE SAME.

THIS ELEMENT IS ABSENT IN THIS CASE SINCE PETITIONERS DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE FUNDS OF BA TELEC II AS SUCH.

BUT THE PETITIONERS AS DIRECTORS OF BA TELEC II MAY BE VESTED WITH CONTROL OVER HOW THE COOPERATIVE SPENDS ITS FUND.

SUCH CONTROL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIPT AND POSSESSION OF SUCH FUNDS UNDER ARTICLE 315(1 )(B) OF THE RPC.

BUT DID THEY NOT HAVE JURIDICAL POSSESSION OF SUCH FUND?

 JURIDICAL POSSESSION IS THE TYPE OF POSSESSION THAT IS ACQUIRED BY THE TRANSFEREE OF A THING WHEN HE RECEIVES THE SAME UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 315( 1 )(B) OF THE RPC.

NOTE THE PHRASE “HE RECEIVES THE SAME”. THIS MEANS THAT  HE MUST  RECEIVE THE FUND.

WHEN JURIDICAL POSSESSION IS ACQUIRED, THE TRANSFEREE OBTAINS SUCH RIGHT OVER THE THING THAT HE CAN SET UP EVEN AGAINST ITS OWNER.63 THIS IS WHAT PETITIONERS LACK.

THEY SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT OVER SUCH FUNDS THAT THEY CAN SET UP AGAINST BATELEC II.

 ASSUMING THAT THE FIRST ELEMENT OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315(1 )(B) OF THE RPC IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE, WILL THERE BE NOW A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE?

NO.

A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONERS IS STILL BOUND TO COLLAPSE.

THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE SECOND ELEMENT OF ESTAFA UNDER THE SAID ARTICLE IS ALSO NON-EXISTENT.

THE SECOND ELEMENT OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315(1)(B) OF THE RPC REQUIRES THAT THERE MUST BE MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION OF THE MONEY OR PROPERTY RECEIVED BY THE OFFENDER OR A DENIAL ON HIS PART OF SUCH RECEIPT.

IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF MONEY OR PROPERTY BY THE PETITIONERS.

WHAT DOES MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION OF MONEY OR PROPERTY MEAN?

THE TERMS MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARTICLE ON POINT, CONNOTES “AN ACT OF USING OR DISPOSING OF ANOTHER’S PROPERTY AS IF IT WERE ONE’S OWN OR OF DEVOTING IT TO A PURPOSE OR USE DIFFERENT FROM THAT AGREED UPON.”64

THIS ELEMENT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE.

BUT THE PETITIONERS APPROVED ANOMALOUS CONTRACTS. IS THIS NOT PROOF THAT THEY MISAPPROPRIATED THE MONEYS OF THE COOPERATIVE?

NO.

IN APPROVING THE ITI AND SUPERTRAC CONTRACTS, THE PETITIONERS MERELY EXERCISED THEIR PREROGATIVE-AS DIRECTORS OF THE COOPERATIVE-TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS THAT THEY DEEM TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR BATELEC II. 65

THOUGH THE PETITIONERS MAY HAVE COMMITTED CERTAIN LAPSES, ERRORS IN JUDGMENT OR EVEN VIOLATIONS OF NEA GUIDELINES IN MAKING SUCH APPROVAL, THESE DO NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF RENDERING THE CONTRACTS WITH ITI AND SUPERTRAC ILLEGAL OR VOID AB INITIO.

HENCE, FROM A STRICTLY LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, ANY PAYMENT MADE BY BA TELEC II PURSUANT TO SUCH CONTRACTS-BACKED AS THEY WERE BY THE PROPER BOARD APPROVALS66-CANNOT PER SE BE DEEMED A MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION OF THE COOPERATIVE’S FUNDS.

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

scd-2016-0089-jose-rizal-l-remo-et-al-vs-the-honorable-secretary-of-justice-agnes-vst-devenadera-et-al-g-r-no-192925-december-9-2016

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 2016-0087: HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, ET AL. VS. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 224302, 29 NOV 2016, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DISMISSES the instant Petition for Quo Warranto and Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit. The Court DECLARES the clustering of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of respondents Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, together with the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, as VALID. The Court further DENIES the Motion for Intervention of the Judicial and Bar Council in the present Petition, but ORDERS the Clerk of Court En Banc to docket as a separate administrative matter the new rules and practices of the Judicial and Bar Council which the Court took cognizance of in the preceding discussion as Item No. 2: the deletion or non-inclusion in JBC No. 2016-1, or the Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council, of Rule 8, Section 1 of JBC-009; and Item No. 3: the removal of incumbent Senior Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as consultants of the Judicial and Bar Council, referred to in pages 35 to 40 of this Decision. The Court finally DIRECTS the Judicial and Bar Council to file its comment on said Item Nos. 2 and 3 within thirty (30) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Without notice, warning, or explanation to the Supreme Court En Banc, Chief Justice Sereno recently unceremoniously relieved Supreme Court Associate Justices Presbiterio J. Velasco, Jr. and Teresita J. LeonardoDe Castro as JBC consultants, and in their stead, the Chief Justice appointed retired Chief Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Artemio V. Panganiban, and Reynato S. Puno as JBC consultants. The experience and wisdom of the three retired Chief Justices are undisputed. However, practicality and prudence also dictate that incumbent Associate Justices of the Court should be retained as JBC consultants since their interest in the Judiciary is real, actual, and direct. Incumbent Associate Justices of the Court are aware of the present state, needs, and concerns of the Judiciary, and consultants from the Court, even if they have no right to vote, have served, from the organization of the JBC, as the only link to the supervisory authority of the Court over the JBC under the 1987 Constitution. . . . . .”

……………………………………………………..

“These changes in settled rules and practices recently adopted by the JBC under Chief Justice Sereno are disconcerting. There appears to be a systematic move by the JBC, under Chief Justice Sereno to arrogate to itself more power and influence than it is actually granted by the Constitution and this Court, and at the same time, to ease out the Court from any legitimate participation in the nomination process for vacancies in the Judiciary, specifically, in the Supreme Court. This behooves the Court, through the exercise of its power of supervision over the JBC, to take a closer look into the new rules and practices of the JBC and ensure that these are in accord with the 1987 Constitution, the pertinent laws, and the governmental policies of transparency and accountability in the nomination process for vacancies in the Judiciary.”

……………………………………………………..

“The Court had recognized that “[ s ]upervision is not a meaningless thing. It is an active power. It is certainly not without limitation, but it at least implies authority to inquire into facts and conditions in order to render the power real and effective.”

“In the exercise of its power of supervision over the JBC, the Court shall take up the aforementioned Item Nos. 2 and 3 as a separate administrative matter and direct the JBC to file its comment on the same.”

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

scd-2016-0087-hon-philip-a-aguinaldo-et-al-vs-his-excellency-president-benigno-simeon-c-aquino-iii-et-al

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 2016-0086: WILLIAM ENRIQUEZ AND NELIA-VELA ENRIQUEZ, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS ISAROG LINE TRANSPORT  AND VICTOR SEDENIO, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 212008, 16 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: INDEMNITY FOR LOSS OF CAPACITY TO EARN; EVIDENCE NOT OBJECTED TO IS ADMISSIBLE.)  (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES ENRIQUEZ VS. ISAROG LINE TRANSPORT ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 13, 2013 and Resolution dated March 4, 2014 in CAG.R. CV No. 97376, and REINSTATES the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 29 dated February 24, 2011 in Civil Case No. L-896, with interest at six percent (6%)14 per annum of the amount of damages awarded from the time of the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SONNY ENRIQUEZ WAS A PASSENGER OF  ISAROG LINE BUS. HE WAS KILLED WHEN THEIR BUS COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER BUS.

HIS PARENTS, THE PETITIONERS WERE CLAIMING FOR INDEMNITY FOR LOSS OF EARNING OF SONNY. RTC RULED THEY ARE ENTITLED TO P1,038,960.00. CA REVERSED RTC RULING. HENCE THIS CASE.

WHAT IS THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED?

WHETHER OR NOT THE SPOUSES ENRIQUEZ ARE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF PL,038,960.00 AS DAMAGES FOR THEIR SON’S LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY.

WHAT IS THE BASIS IN LAW OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY?

UNDER ARTICLE 2206 OF THE CIVIL CODE, THE HEIRS OF THE VICTIM ARE ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY, THUS:

Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:

( 1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;

xxx

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SAID INDEMNITY?

COMPENSATION OF THIS NATURE IS AWARDED NOT FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS, BUT FOR LOSS OF CAPACITY TO EARN.

WHAT TYPE OF DAMAGES IS THIS INDEMNITY?

IT IS IN THE NATURE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES.

AS SUCH IT MUST BE DULY PROVEN BY COMPETENT PROOF AND THE BEST OBTAINABLE EVIDENCE THEREOF.

WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED?

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT WHEN:

 (1) THE DECEASED WAS SELF-EMPLOYED AND EARNING LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE UNDER CURRENT LABOR LAWS, IN WHICH CASE, JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF THE FACT THAT IN THE DECEASED’S LINE OF WORK NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE; OR

(2) THE DECEASED WAS EMPLOYED AS A DAILY WAGE WORKER EARNING LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE UNDER CURRENT LABOR LAWS.

IN THIS CASE, PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED A CERTIFICATION FROM ASIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS INC DURING TRIAL SHOWING THAT SONNY WAS EARNING P185.00 PER DAY AS SECURITY GUARD. BUT C.A. SAID THIS HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE THE SIGNATORY WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO TESTIFY. WAS CA CORRECT?

NO.  BECAUSE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT TO SAID EVIDENCE.  

THE RULE IS THAT EVIDENCE NOT OBJECTED TO IS DEEMED ADMITTED AND MAY BE VALIDLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ARRIVING AT ITS JUDGMENT.

HOW WAS THE P1,038,960.00 COMPUTED?

USING THE SETTLED FORMULA, THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:

NET EARNING CAPACITY= LIFE EXPECTANCY X GROSS ANNUAL I 13 L. . E NCOME -1VMG XPENSES = [2/3 (80 -AGE AT DEATH)] X GAI -[50% OF GAI] = [2/3 (80 -26)] X P57,720.00 -P28,860.00 = [2/3 (54)] X P28,860.00 = 36 X P28,860.00 NET EARNING CAPACITY= PL,038,960.00

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

scd-2016-0086-william-enriquez-and-nelia-vela-enriquez-vs-isarog-line-transport-inc-and-victor-sedenio

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”.