J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2013-0030: MODESTO SANCHEZ, PETITIONER, – VERSUS – ANDREW SANCHEZ, (G.R. NO.  187661, 04 DEC 2013, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: LACHES; PRESCRIPTION; DISMISSAL BASED ON PLEADINGS; WHEN TRIAL IS NECESSARY.  (BRIEF TITLE: SANCHEZ VS. SANCHEZ)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE,  in  light  of the  foregoing,  we  resolve  to  DENY  the instant  petition.  The  16  July  2008  Decision  of the  Court  of Appeals  is AFFIRMED.  The  case  is  REMANDED  to  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of Manila, Branch 39 for trial  and judgment on the merits.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ANDREW FILED A CASE FOR ANNULMENT OF A DEED OF SALE HE EXECUTED CONVEYING A PARCEL OF LAND TO HIS BROTHER  MODESTO ON GROUND THAT THE PRICE WAS NOT PAID. MODESTO FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUND OF LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS SUBMITTED. CA REVERSED RTC ON GROUND THAT THERE IS NEED FOR TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE FACTS AND ORDERED THAT CASE BE REMANDED TO RTC FOR TRIAL. WAS CA CORRECT?

YES.

FIRST, WELL SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT THE ELEMENTS OF LACHES MUST BE PROVEN POSITIVELY. 

“Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss.  At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.  Those issues must be resolved at the trial of  the  case  on  the  merits,  wherein  both  parties  will  be  given  ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.”

SECOND,  THE  AFFIRMATIVE  DEFENSE  OF PRESCRIPTION  DOES  NOT  AUTOMATICALLY  WARRANT  THE  DISMISSAL  OF  A  COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 16 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

“An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed.  If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.

Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will  be  given  ample  opportunity  to  prove  their  respective  claims  and defenses.”

THIRD, BOTH  PARTIES DENIED EACH OTHER’S  ALLEGATIONS.  AN OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF A CASE IS NOT PROPER WHEN THERE ARE FACTUAL MATTERS IN DISPUTE. 

“It  is  then  but  logical  to  review  more  evidence  on disputed matters.   On this score alone, it is apparent that the complaint on its face  does  not  readily  show  that  the  action  has  already  prescribed.    We emphasize once more that a summary or outright dismissal of an action is not  proper  where  there  are  factual  matters  in  dispute,  which  require

presentation and appreciation of evidence.”

FOURTH, THE    STATEMENT “transaction did not push through since defendant did not have the financial wherewithal to purchase the subject property” ALLOWS FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.  IN ONE INTERPRETATION, PRESCRIPTION APPLIES. IN ANOTHER INTERPRETATION, IT DOES NOT.

SUPPOSE IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS NOT PAID. IS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DEED OF SALE SUBJECT TO PRESCRIPTION?

NO BECAUSE THE CONTRACT IS VOID AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SUCH CONTRACT IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. 

“The ruling of this Court in Montecillo  v. Reynes supports this argument:

“Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration.”

Such  ruling  of  the  Court  would  mean  that  when  the  deed  of  sale declares that the price has been paid, when in fact it has never been paid, that would  be  considered  as  a  “badge  of  simulation”  and  would  render  the contract  void  and  consequently,  the  right  to  challenge  the  same  is imprescriptible.”

SUPPOSE WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED WAS   A  SIMPLE  NON-PAYMENT  OF PURCHASE PRICE WILL THE DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION APPLY?

YES.

THIS WILL NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT AND COULD ONLY GIVE RISE TO OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES SUCH AS RESCISSION OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.  IN THIS SCENARIO, THE CONTRACT REMAINS VALID AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO PRESCRIPTION.  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0030-DEC 2013 – SANCHEZ

CASE 2013-0029: HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HONORABLESANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 184496, 02 DECEMBER 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. (BRIEF TITLE: ABDUL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE,  the  Petition  1s  DISMISSED  for  being  moot  and academic.

 No pronouncement as to costs.

 SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

SANDIGANBAYAN ORDERED SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER ABDUL PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS CASE. PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO SECURE A TRO FROM THE SC. THEN SANDIGANBAYAN ISSUED A DECISION ACQUITTING PETITIONER. WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO WITH HIS PETITION QUESTIONING THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION?

THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

FOR A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF ADJUDICATION, THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL CASE  OR  CONTROVERSY.   

“Thus,  in  Mattel,  Inc.  v.  Francisco   we  have  ruled  that where  the  issue  has  become  moot  and  academic,  there  is  no  justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging. In the present case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the present Petition.  Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the order of suspension  could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally speaking he did not commit the offense charged.”

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR SUSPENDING A PUBLIC OFFICER PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS CASE AT SANDIGANBAYAN?

TO WARRANT THE SUSPENSION  OF  A  PUBLIC  OFFICER  UNDER  THE  SAID SECTION 13, HE MUST BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE

(1) UNDER RA 3019, OR

(2) UNDER TITLE SEVEN, BOOK II OF THE RPC, OR

(3) INVOLVING FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC  FUNDS  OR  PROPERTY.   

CAN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BE CONSIDERED FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY?

YES.

IN BUSTILLO  V.  SANDIGANBAYAN, FALSIFICATION OF VOUCHERS WAS CONSIDERED FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT FUNDS BECAUSE VOUCHERS ARE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SIGNIFYING A CASH OUTFLOW FROM GOVERNMENT COFFERS

IN BARTOLO VS. DANDIGANBAYAN THE ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION OF THE THREE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING IT APPEAR THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT WAS 100% COMPLETE [WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT,] CONSTITUTES FRAUD UPON PUBLIC FUNDS.”

HOW DO THESE CASES APPLY TO THE CASE OF ABDUL?

THE ACT OF PETITIONER ALSO CONSTITUTES FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT  OR  PUBLIC  FUNDS.  

“. . . This  was  aptly  explained  by  respondent  in  its Resolution  dated October 9, 2003, viz:

x  x x  The  existence  of fraud  in the  commission  of the  offense  charged  can be easily ascertained from the nature of the acts of herein accused when they made it appear  that  Engr.  Zubair  F.  Murad  was  then  the  Municipal  Engineer  who prepared  and  signed  Local  Budget  Preparation  Forms  No.  152,  153  and  154, when  in truth  and  in fact,  said  Engr.  Murad  was  not  even  an  employee  of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao  del  Sur.  As a consequence of this act,  several projects, their costs and extent, were authorized without the careful assessment of [the]  legitimate municipal engineer.  This alone is sufficient to justify the Court’s conclusion  that,  indeed,  the  alleged  act  of accused  constitutes  fraud  upon  the government.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0029-DEC 2013 – HASHIM

CASE 2013-0028: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (G.R. NO. 175356, 03 DECEMBER 2013, DEL CASTILLO J.)SUBJECT/S: LEGALITY OF DISCOUNTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (BRIEF TITLE: MANILA MEMORIAL VS. DSWD SECRETARY)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.

 SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO SENIOR CITIZENS (UNDER R.A. 7432 AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9257) WILL FORCE ESTABLISHMENTS TO RAISE THEIR PRICES IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR ITS IMPACT ON OVERALL PROFITS OR INCOME/GROSS SALES. THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OR THOSE NOT BELONGING TO THE SENIOR CITIZEN CLASS, ARE, THUS,  MADE  TO  EFFECTIVELY  SHOULDER  THE  SUBSIDY  FOR  SENIOR  CITIZENS.  THIS,  IN PETITIONERS’ VIEW, IS UNFAIR.  IS PETITIONER’S CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO.

CONGRESS  MAY  BE  REASONABLY  ASSUMED  TO  HAVE FORESEEN  THIS  EVENTUALITY.    BUT,  MORE  IMPORTANTLY,  THIS  GOES  INTO  THE  WISDOM, EFFICACY AND EXPEDIENCY OF THE SUBJECT LAW WHICH IS NOT PROPER FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

IN A WAY, THIS LAW PURSUES ITS SOCIAL EQUITY OBJECTIVE IN A NON-TRADITIONAL MANNER UNLIKE PAST AND EXISTING DIRECT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED SECTORS OF OUR SOCIETY.  VERILY, CONGRESS MUST BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT LEEWAY IN FORMULATING WELFARE LEGISLATIONS GIVEN THE ENORMOUS CHALLENGES THAT THE GOVERNMENT FACES RELATIVE TO, AMONG OTHERS, RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY  IN  IMPLEMENTING  SOCIAL  REFORM  MEASURES  WHICH  AIM  TO  PROTECT  AND UPHOLD THE INTERESTS OF THOSE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY.  IN THE PROCESS, THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO ENJOYS THE RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES OF LIVING IN A DEMOCRATIC POLITY, MUST BEAR HIS SHARE IN SUPPORTING MEASURES INTENDED FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SHOWING OF A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSAILED LAW MUST BE SUSTAINED.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0028-DEC 2013- MANILA MEMORIAL

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”.