Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


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.:)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — 1 Comment
June 21, 2016

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”.

 

 

 

Comment

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.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
June 20, 2016

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”.

 

 

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016- 0030: THE WELLEX GROUP INC VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBA YAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.) ( G.R. No. 211098, 20 APRIL 2016, PEREZ J.) (SUBJECTS: JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN; DECISION NOT BINDING ON PARTIES NOT IMPLEADED; CREDITOR CANNOT UNILATERALLY DISPOSE OF MORTGAGED ASSETS; DUE PROCESS AFFORDED MORTGAGOR) (BRIEF TITLE: THE WELLEX GROUP VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA ET AL.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized
June 15, 2016

CASE 2016- 0030: THE WELLEX GROUP  INC VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBA YAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.) ( G.R. No. 211098, 20 APRIL 2016, PEREZ J.) (SUBJECTS: JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN; DECISION NOT BINDING ON PARTIES NOT IMPLEADED; CREDITOR CANNOT UNILATERALLY DISPOSE OF MORTGAGED ASSETS; DUE PROCESS AFFORDED MORTGAGOR) (BRIEF TITLE: THE WELLEX GROUP VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA ET AL.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered GRANTING the instant Petition and SETTING ASIDE the Order dated 9 January 2012 and Resolution dated 15 January 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132 in Civil Case No. 09-399. This case is hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE?

 

THE WELLEX GROUP BORROWED FROM THE JOSE VELARDE ACCOUNT (IMA ACCOUNT) BEING MANAGED BY BDO P500,000,000.00 AND AS SECURITY MORTGAGED TO BDO WPI SHARES. THE SANDIGANBAYAN CONVICTED PRES. ESTRADA OF PLUNDER AND DECLARED THAT THE WPI SHARES AMONG OTHERS ARE FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVT. THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL. SANDIGANBAYAN WAS ABOUT TO SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION THE WPI SHARES. THE WELLEX GROUP FILED A CASE AT RTC TO STOP THE AUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ALREADY PAID THEIR LOAN DIRECTLY TO JOSE VELARDE AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD GET BACK THEIR COLLATERAL, THE WPI SHARES. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FOR  BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE RULE ON HIERARCHY OF COURTS.

 

IS THE LOAN OF THE WELLEX GROUP VALID?

 

YES, AS DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN A RELATED CASE INVOLVING THE SAME WPI SHARES.

 

IF THE LOAN IS VALID, WHO IS NOW THE CREDITOR?

 

THE STATE, IN SUBSTITUTION OF BDO.

 

CAN THE STATE NOW AUCTION THE WPI SHARES?

 

NO.

 

ART 2088 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROHIBITS THE DISPOSAL OR SELLING UNILATERALY BY THE CREDITOR OF ASSETS GIVEN BY WAY OF PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE AND APPLYING THE PROCEEDS TO THE LOAN.

 

THE CREDITOR MUST FIRST MAKE DEMAND TO PAY AND THEN INITIATE FORECLOSE PROCEEDINGS.

 

THE DEBTOR MUST BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THE OBLIGATION, OR TO ASSERT ANY CLAIM OR DEFENSE, WHICH THE DEBTOR MAY HAVE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

 

THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN THEIR DECISION ALREADY DECLARED THAT WELLEX IS CONSIDERED A DELINQUENT DEBTOR. SINCE THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL WILL IT NOW BIND WELLEX GROUP?

 

NO, SINCE WELLEX WAS NOT IMPLEADED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN CASE.

 

IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT NO MAN SHALL BE AFFECTED BY ANY PROCEEDING TO WHICH HE IS A STRANGER, AND STRANGERS TO A CASE ARE NOT BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE COURT.15

 

DOES SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE FILED BY WELLEX?

 

 NO.

 

THE CASE OF WELLEX IS PURELY CIVIL.

 

BUT SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN MANY CASES THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF A CRIMINAL CASE. IS THIS DOCTRINE NOT VIOLATED?

 

NO.

 

THE RTC CASE OF WELLEX GROUP DOES NOT CONCERN THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN.

 

THE RTC CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE IMA ACCOUNT AND/OR ANY OF ITS FINANCIAL ASSETS, WHICH, AS ·STATED ABOVE, HAS BEEN ADJUDGED FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE.

 

IN CONTRAST, THE SAID CASE IS AN ORDINARY CIVIL CASE ENTAILING THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACTIONS OF A CREDITOR IN PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SECURITY FOR ITS LOAN, WHICH NECESSITATES THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE, THEREFORE FALLING UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS.

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0030-WELLEX GROUP

 

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”.

 

 

 

 

Permalink