J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0035: GABRIEL YAP, SRL. DULY REPRESENTED BY GILBERT YAP AND ALSO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, GABRIEL YAP, JR., AND HYMAN YAP, VS. LETECIA SIAO, L YNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO (G.R. NO. 212493) CEBU SOUTH MEMORIALGARDEN, INC.,  VS. LETECIA SIAO, L YNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO (G.R. NO. 212504, 01 JUNE 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECTS: REQUIRMENT OF BOARD RESOLUTION IN  NON-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION; LAW OF THE CASE; GENUINE ISSUE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ESTOPPEL) (BRIEF TITLE: YAP ET AL VS. SIAO ET AL).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 9 October 2013 and Resolution dated 26 March 2014 in CAG.R. CV No. 02037 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-23707 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHO ARE THE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF A COMPANY WHO CAN SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION WITHOUT NEED OF A BOARD RESOLUTION?

THEY ARE:

 ( 1) THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

(2) THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION,

(3) THE GENERAL MANAGER OR ACTING GENERAL MANAGER,

( 4) PERSONNEL OFFICER, AND

( 5) AN EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST IN A LABOR CASE.

WHAT IS THE RATIONAL BEHIND THIS RULE?

THESE OFFICERS ARE “IN A POSITION TO VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION.” 17

IN CEBU METRO PHARMACY, INC V. EURO-MED LABORATORIES, PHARMACY, INC.,18 THE PRESIDENT AND MANAGER OF CEBU METRO WAS HELD BY THE COURT AS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING EVEN WITHOUT THE SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD.

THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY:  AS THE CORPORATION’S PRESIDENT AND MANAGER, SHE IS IN A POSITION TO VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION. IN ADDITION, SUCH AN ACT IS PRESUMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF HER AUTHORITY TO ACT WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE CORPORATION’S BUSINESS AND HER USUAL DUTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY PROVISION IN THE CORPORATION’S CHARTER OR BY-LAWS.19

CAN SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE REMEDY THE LACK OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING?

YES.

IN COSCO PHILIPPINE SHIPPING, INC. V. KEMPER INSURANCE IT WAS SO HELD.

ALSO IN CHINA BANKING CORPORATION V. MONDRAGON INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC.

 ALSO IN ABAYA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION V. MERIT PHILIPPINES.

BUT WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH OR A DEFECT THEREIN, UNLIKE IN VERIFICATION, IS GENERALLY NOT CURABLE BY ITS SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION OR CORRECTION THEREOF, UNLESS THERE IS A NEED TO RELAX THE RULE ON THE GROUND OF “SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE” OR PRESENCE OF “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR COMPELLING REASONS.”

HOW ABOUT IF THERE ARE MANY PLAINTIFFS OR PETITIONERS.  MUST ALL SIGN THE CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

YES.

EXCEPTION:

IF THERE ARE REASONABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, AS WHEN ALL THE PLAINTIFFS OR PETITIONERS SHARE A COMMON INTEREST AND INVOKE A COMMON CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENSE, THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE OF THEM IN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE RULE.

CAN THE ISSUE ON CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING BE RAISED AT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST TIME?

NO.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO RENDER A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. AFTER THE TRIAL COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CAN RESPONDENTS STILL ELEVATE THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS?

THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS POSED BY RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED UPON AND RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. BY APPEALING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESPONDENTS ARE IN EFFECT ASKING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REVISIT THE SAME ISSUES. THIS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE “LAW OF THE CASE.”

WHAT IS THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE?

THE “LAW OF THE CASE” DOCTRINE APPLIES IN A SITUATION WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT HAS MADE A RULING ON A QUESTION ON APPEAL AND THEREAFTER REMANDS THE CASE TO THE LOWER COURT TO EFFECT THE RULING;

THE QUESTION SETTLED BY THE APPELLATE COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE AT THE LOWER COURT AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL.

IT MEANS THAT WHATEVER IS IRREVOCABLY ESTABLISHED AS THE CONTROLLING LEGAL RULE OR DECISION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE CONTINUES TO BE THE LAW OF THE CASE, WHETHER CORRECT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT, SO LONG AS THE FACTS ON WHICH THE LEGAL RULE OR DECISION WAS PREDICATED CONTINUE TO BE THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. 32

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS RULE?

TO ENABLE AN APPELLATE COURT TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES SATISFACTORILY AND EFFICIENTLY, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IF A QUESTION, ONCE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY IT, WERE TO BE LITIGATED ANEW IN THE SAME CASE UPON ANY AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL. WITHOUT IT, THERE WOULD BE ENDLESS LITIGATION. LITIGANTS WOULD BE FREE TO SPECULATE ON CHANGES. IN THE PERSONNEL OF A COURT, OR ON THE CHANCE OF HAVING PROPOSITIONS REWRITTEN ONCE GRAVELY RULED ON SOLEMN ARGUMENT AND HANDED DOWN AS THE LAW OF A . 33 GIVEN CASE.

WHEN IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PERMITTED?

ONLY IF THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT AND A MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER IF, WHILE THE PLEADINGS ON THEIR FACE APPEAR TO RAISE ISSUES, THE AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, AND ADMISSIONS PRESENTED BY THE MOVING PARTY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE NOT GENUINE.

WHAT IS A GENUINE ISSUE?

A “GENUINE ISSUE” IS AN ISSUE OF FACT WHICH REQUIRES THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SHAM, FICTITIOUS, CONTRIVED OR FALSE CLAIM.

WHEN THE FACTS AS PLEADED APPEAR UNCONTESTED OR UNDISPUTED, THEN THERE IS NO REAL OR GENUINE ISSUE OR QUESTION AS TO THE FACTS, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS CALLED FOR.

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE?

THE PARTY WHO MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

IN THIS CASE, IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPER?

YES.

PETITIONERS SEEKS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE  FROM RESPONDENTS, I.E. TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO PETITIONER CORPORATION BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF AGREEMENT.

AS THEIR DEFENSE, RESPONDENTS CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT.

HOWEVER, RESPONDENTS FILED A MOTION FOR SUPPORT RELYING ON THE SAME AGREEMENT THAT THEY ARE IMPUGNING.

IN VIEW OF THIS ADMISSION, RESPONDENTS ARE EFFECTIVELY BANKING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT.

THUS, THERE ARE NO MORE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE THRESHED OUT.

WHAT BARS RESPONDENT FROM QUESTIONING THE AGREEMENT?

THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE, AS EXPRESSLY ADOPTED IN ARTICLE 1431 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AND PRONOUNCED AS ONE OF THE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION UNDER RULE 131, SECTION 3 (A) OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS FOLLOWS: “WHENEVER A PARTY HAS, BY HIS OWN DECLARATION, ACT OR OMISSION, INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY LED ANOTHER TO BELIEVE A PARTICULAR THING TO BE TRUE, AND TO ACT UPON SUCH A BELIEF, HE CANNOT, IN ANY LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH DECLARATION, ACT OR OMISSION, BE PERMITTED TO FALSIFY IT.”

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

SCD-2016-0035-GABRIEL YAP 

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 2016-0034: HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES, REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H. PENAFLORIDA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, VS. ROMEO HERNAEZ, MILAGROS VILLANUEVA, CRISANTO CANJA, NENA BAYOG, VENANCIO SEMILON, GAUDENCIO VILLANUEVA, VIRGINIA DAGOHOY, VIRGILIO CANJA, FELIX CASTILLO AND TEOFILO HERNAEZ, GAUDENCIO ARNAEZ, BENJAMIN COSTOY, ERMIN VILLANUEVA, MARCELINO AMAR, AND COURT OF APPEALS, (G.R. NO. 199628, 20 APRIL 2016, BRION, J.) (SUBJECT/S: LAND TENANCY; JURISDICTION OF DARAB VS. JURISDICTION OF DAR SECRETARY; WHAT IS AGRARIAN ISSUE; JUDICIAL COMPROMISE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the present petition for review on certiorari and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated July 30, 2010 and resolution dated November 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 85600.”

Accordingly, we refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to resolve with dispatch the respondents’ rights, if any, to their respective home lots.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHICH AGENCY SHALL RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON RESPONDENTS’ ENTITLEMENT TO THEIR HOME LOTS?

THE DARAB NOT THE OFFICE OF THE DAR SECRETARY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE. 

JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN DISPUTES LIES WITH THE DARAB. 

WHAT IS AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE?

IT REFERS TO ANY CONTROVERSY RELATING TO TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS, WHETHER LEASEHOLD, TENANCY, STEWARDSHIP, OR OTHERWISE, OVER LANDS DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURE, INCLUDING DISPUTES CONCERNING FARMWORKERS ASSOCIATIONS OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS.24 

 UNDENIABLY, THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A CONTROVERSY REGARDING TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

THE RIGHT TO A HOME LOT IS A MATTER ARISING FROM A LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP. 

SUPPOSE THE RESPONDENTS ARE FOUND NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESS THEIR PRESENT HOME LOTS, WHAT IS THEIR REMEDY?

TO DEMAND FROM THEIR LANDHOLDERS TO DESIGNATE ANOTHER LOCATION AS THEIR HOME LOT. 

THE LANDHOLDER’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE HOME LOTS TO HIS TENANTS CONTINUES FOR SO LONG AS THE TENANCY RELATIONS EXIST AND HAS NOT YET BEEN SEVERED.  

IT IS ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE BUT NOT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. IS THIS COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VALID?

NO.

FIRST, THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS DID NOT SIGN THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

SECOND, EVEN IF SIGNED IT MUST HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT BECAUSE IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH A DISPUTE ALREADY BEING RESOLVED BY THE COURT.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT INTENDED TO RESOLVE A MATTER ALREADY UNDER LITIGATION.

IT IS A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE.

IT HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT.

CAN THE PARTIES JUST ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL OF THE COURT?

NO.

THE RULE IS: NO EXECUTION OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT MAY BE ISSUED UNLESS THE AGREEMENT RECEIVES THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT WHERE THE LITIGATION IS PENDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT IS DECREED.26   

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

SCD-2016-0034-HEIRS OF HAGORILES 

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 2016-0033: 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.”

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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”.