J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0023: REPUBLIC ET AL VS. HON. MUPAS ET AL (G.R. NO. 181892); REPUBLIC ET AL VS. PIATCO ET AL  (G.R. NO. 209917); TAKENAKA ET AL VS REPUBLIC ET AL (G.R. NO. 209699) PIATCO VS. REPUBLIC ET AL (G.R. NO. 209731) (19 APRIL 2016, BRION, J)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, we:

(1) SUSTAIN our September 8, 2015 Decision, thus:

 a) The principal amount of just compensation is fixed at $326,932,221.26 as of December 21, 2004. Thereafter, the amount of $267 ,493 ,61 7 .26, which is the difference between $326,932,221.26 and the proffered value of $59,438,604.00, shall earn a straight interest of 12% per annum from September 11, 2006 until June 30, 2013, and a straight interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment;

 b) The Republic is hereby ordered to make direct payment of the just compensation due to PIATCO; and

c) The Republic is hereby ordered to defray the expenses of the BOC in the sum of P3,500,000.00.

(2) PARTLY GRANT the Republic’s motion for reconsideration by declaring that full ownership over the NAIA-IPT III shall be vested in the Republic upon full payment of the just compensation as computed in the immediately preceding paragraph; ·

(3) DENY PIATCO’s motion for partial reconsideration;

( 4) DENY Takenaka and Asahikosan’s motion for partial reconsideration; and

(5) RECTIFY THE FOLLOWING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS in our Decision dated September 8, 2015:

(a) The last paragraph of page 41 of our Decision should read as follows:

Interest. The CA further held that interest shall be added to just compensation as of December 21, 2004. xxx

(b) Page 99 of the Decision should reflect the proper quote of item 3.1.17 of the Scott Wilson Report, as follows:

3.1.17 On the basis of a construction cost valuation of the order of US$322 million we would expect the cost of construction supervision to be a minimum of US$9 .5 million. It is understood that PIATCO has paid US$7.9 million to the QA Inspectors (JAC) and US$4.2 million to PCI, SOM, PA CI CON and JGC and this therefore appears not unreasonable.

(c) Pages 123-124 of the Decision should reflect the proper number of days in years 2008 and 2012, which is 366 days, and hence should be corrected as follows:

. . . . .

This Resolution is final and no further pleadings shall be entertained. Let judgment be entered in due course.

SO ORDERED.”

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

SCD-2016-0023-PIATCO

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 2016-0022: SPOUSES VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.) AND LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJ AO AND ANASTACIA Z. (G.R. NO. 185757, 02 MARCH 2016) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES DE GUZMAN ET AL. VS. C.A. ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 27, 2008 and the Resolution dated November 19, 2008 rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 00194-MIN are AFFIRMED, insofar as they dismissed the Complaint for Reconveyance with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages. The Deeds of Absolute Sale are declared void. Respondent Bajao is ORDERED to return the purchase price of P2,400 to petitioners, with legal interest rate at 6% per annum computed from the time of the filing of the Complaint on January 21, 2000 until finality of judgement, and thereafter, at 6% per annum until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. “

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

 SCD-2016-0022-SPOUSES DE GUZMAN

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 2016-0021:  BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS FELICIANO P. LEGASPI (G.R. NO. 205966, 02 MARCH 2016, PERALTA , J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION BASED ON AMOUNT; JURISDICTION OVER BSP; BSP MAY HIRE PRIVATE COUNSEL INSTEAD OF OSG) (BRIEF TITLE: BSP VS. LEGASPI)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 DATED MARCH 13, 2013 OF PETITIONER BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS IS GRANTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION DATED AUGUST 15, 2012 AND RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS DATED JANUARY 20, 2009 AND APRIL 3, 2009 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, ARE AFFIRMED.

LET THIS CASE, THEREFORE, BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT CAN BE RAISED IN AN APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT?

ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW.

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?

YES. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

( 1) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, OR CONJECTURES;

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE;

(3) WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS;

 ( 5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

( 6) WHEN IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WH!CH THEY ARE BASED;

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONER’S MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDEPT;

AND (I0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8 UNDER THE PRESENT CASE, THE RTC AND THE CA HAVE DIFFERENT FINDINGS OF FACT, HENCE, THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER BSP.

RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVE TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF  REAL PROPERTY WHERE ASSESSED VALUE EXCEEDS P20K. BUT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  DOES RTC HAS JURISDICTION?

YES BECAUSE ATTACHED TO COMPLAINT WAS A TAX DECLARATION SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY HAS ASSESSED VALUE OF P215,320.00. ANNEXES TO A COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED PART OF, AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLAINT.

CA SAID BSP BEING A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY OSG OR OGCC AND NOT A PRIVATE LAW FIRM. IS CA  CORRECT?

NO. UNDER R.A. 7653 OR THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT, THE BSP GOVERNOR IS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE BANGKO SENTRAL, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH COUNSEL, INCLUDING PRIVATE COUNSEL, AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE MONETARY BOARD, IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ACTION OR SPECIALIZED LEGAL STUDIES.16 UNDER THE SAME LAW, THE BSP GOVERNOR MAY ALSO DELEGATE HIS POWER TO REPRESENT THE BSP TO OTHER OFFICERS UPON HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

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

SCD-2016-0021-BSP VS LEGASPI 

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”.