J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2017-0019- WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY, VS. ALVIN TOMLIN, (G.R. No. 205998 24 APRIL 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.🙂 (SUBJECT/S: REPLEVIN) (BRIEF TITLE: SIY VS. TOMLIN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October 9, 2012 Decision and February 19, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.124967 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, in that the subject Land Rover Range Rover, with Plate Number ZMG 272 and particularly described in and made subject of these proceedings, is ORDERED RETURNED to respondent Alvin Tomlin as its registered owner.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Considering that he was no longer the owner or rightful possessor of the subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 in July, 2011, petitioner may not seek a return of the same through replevin. Quite the contrary, respondent, who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land Transportation Office, is the rightful owner thereof, and as such, he is entitled to its possession. For this reason, the CA was correct in decreeing the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-11-69644, although it e1red in ordering the return of the vehicle to the PNP-HPG, which had no further right to hold the vehicle in its custody. As the registered and rightful owner of the subject vehicle, the trial court must return the same to respondent.

Petitioner cannot be allowed to cut his losses by ostensibly securing the recovery of the subject vehicle in lieu of its price, which Ong failed and continues to fail to remit. On the other hand, Ong’s declarations contained in his Affidavit,36 to the effect that petitioner remains the owner of the vehicle, and that Chua came into illegal possession and ownership of the same by unlawfully appropriating the same for himself without paying for it, are unavailing. Faced with a possible criminal charge for estafa initiated by petitioner for failing or refusing to remit the price for the subject vehicle, Ong’ s declarations are considered self-serving, that is, calculated to free himself from the criminal charge. The premise is that by helping petitioner to actually recover his vehicle by insisting that the same was unlawfully taken from him, instead of remitting its price to petitioner, Ong expects that he and petitioner may redeem themselves from their bad judgment; for the petitioner, the mistake of bestowing his full faith and confidence upon Ong, and blindly surrendering the vehicle, its documents of title, and a deed of sale executed and signed in blank, to the latter; and for Ong, his failure to remit the proceeds of the sale to petitioner; and petitioner might then opt to desist from pursuing the estafa and other criminal charges against him.”  

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

SCD-2017-0019-William Anghian Siy Vs. Alvin Tomlin

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 2017-0018 – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, VS. JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, OWEN VINCENT D. BOLANTE, MA. CAROL D. BOLANTE, ALEJO LAMERA, CARMEN LAMERA, EDNA CONSTANTINO, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, KATHERINE G. BOMBEO, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, MOLUGAN FOUNDATION, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., AND NATIONAL LIVELIHOODDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD CORPORATION), (G.R. NO. 186717 17 APRIL 2017., SERENO, CJ.:) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, VS. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAY AS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 59,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY, JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, DONNIE RAY G. PANGANIBAN, EAR WALTER G. PANGANIBAN, DARRYL G. PANGANIBAN, GAVINA G. PANGANIBAN, JAYPEE G. PANGANIBAN, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, KA THERINE G. BOMBEO, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD CORPORATION), MOLUGAN FOUNDATION, ASSEMBLY OF GRACIOUS SAMARITANS FOUNDATION, INC., ONE ACCORD CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ENDEAVOR FOR SALVATION & SUCCESS THROUGH POVERTY ALLEVIATION, INC., SOCIETY’S MULTI-PURPOSE FOUNDATION, INC., ALLIANCE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT OF PANGASINAN, INC., AND STA. LUCIA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BU LA CAN, INC. ), (G.R. NO. 190357 17 APRIL 2017., SERENO, CJ.:) (SUBJECT/S: HOW DO COURTS TREAT SENATE REPORTS) (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. BOLANTE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 186717 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated 27 February 2009 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 is AFFIRMED.

The petition in G.R. No. 190357 is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 3 July 2009 and Order dated 13 November 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59, in AMLC Case No. 07-001 are AFFIRMED. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on 25 March 2009 is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BANK INQUIRY ORDER?

TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE: SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 54 AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS THELMA ESPINA.

“We find no reason to conclude that the R TC determined the existence of probable cause, or lack thereof, in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.

To repeat, the application for the issuance of a bank inquiry order was supported by only two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54 and the testimony of witness Thelma Espina.

HOW DO THE COURT TREAT REPORTS OF THE SENATE?

REPORTS OF THE SENATE STAND ON THE SAME LEVEL AS OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES.

“We have had occasion to rule that reports of the Senate stand on the same level as other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and that the facts and arguments presented therein should undergo the same level of judicial scrutiny and analysis.101 As courts have the discretion to accept or reject them, 102 no grave error can be ascribed to the RTC for rejecting and refusing to give probative value to Senate Committee Report No. 54.

At any rate, Senate Committee Report No. 54 only provided the AMLC with a description of the alleged unlawful activity, which is the fertilizer fund scam. It also named the alleged mastermind of the scam, who was respondent Bolante. The entire case of the AMLC, however, hinged on the following excerpt of Senate Committee Report No. 54:

But Undersecretary Bolante’s power over the agriculture department was widely known. And it encompasses more than what the Administrative Code provided.

In fact, at the time that he was Undersecretary, Jocelyn Bolante was concurrently appointed by the President in other powerful positions: as Acting Chairman of the National Irrigation Administration, as Acting Chairman of the Livelihood Corporation xx x.103 (Emphasis supplied)

It was this excerpt that led the AMLC to connect the fertilizer fund scam to the suspicious transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB.”

WHAT DID THE RTC FOUND?

BOLANTE HAD CEASED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LIVECOR FOR 14 MONTHS BEFORE THE LATTER EVEN MADE THE INITIAL TRANSACTION, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION REPORTS.

ALSO, BASED ON THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, NO PART OF THE P728 MILLION FERTILIZER FUND WAS EVER RELEASED TO LIVECOR.

“However, the R TC found during trial that respondent Bolante had ceased to be a member of the board of trustees of LIVECOR for 14 months before the latter even made the initial transaction, which was the subject of the suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore, the RTC took note that according to the Audit Report submitted by the Commission on Audit, no part of the P728 million fertilizer fund was ever released to LIVECOR.

We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003, the AMLC was already allowed ex parte to inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related web of accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel Panganiban. With the resources available to the AMLC, coupled with a bank inquiry order granted 15 months before Eugenio was even pro mu I gated, the AMLC should have been able to obtain more evidence establishing a more substantive link tying Bolante and the fertilizer fund scam to LIVECOR. It did not help that the AMLC failed to include in its application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003 LIVECOR’s PNB account as indicated in the suspicious transaction reports. This PNB account was included only in the application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC Case No. 07-001.

As it stands, the evidence relied upon by the AMLC in 2006 was still the same evidence it used to apply for a bank inquiry order in 2008. Regrettably, this evidence proved to be insufficient when weighed against that presented by the respondents, who were given notice and the opportunity to contest the issuance of the bank inquiry order pursuant to Eugenio. In fine, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application.”

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

SCD-2017-0018-REPUBLIC VS JOCELYN I. BOLANTE ET AL, G.R. NO. 186421, 17 APRIL 2017

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 2017-0017: ASIA BREWERY, INC. AND CHARLIE S. GO VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC.)  (G.R. NO. 190432 25 APRIL 2017, SERENO, CJ:)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated 30 January 2008 issued by Judge Benjamin T. Pozon and the Order dated 23 November 2009 issued by Judge Winlove Dumayas in Civil Case No. 04-336 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint is REINSTATED, and the case is ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for further proceedings. Let the records of the case be likewise remanded to the court a quo.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

” The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action against the defendants is this: admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, may a judge validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint?40
We believe that petitioner met this test.

A cause of action has three elements: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff; 2) the correlative obligation of the defendant not to violate the right; and 3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of that legal right.”

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

SCD-2017-0017-Asia Brewery Inc and Charlie S. Go Vs Equitable PCI Bank

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”.