J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

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”.

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”.

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”.