J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2014-0021: MACARIA ARGUELLES AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETRONIO ARGUELLES, PETITIONERS, – VERSUS MALARAYAT RURAL BANK, INC., PROMULGATED: RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 200468, __ MARCH 2014, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ARGUELLES VS. MALARAYAT RURAL BANK)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 19, 2011 and Resolution dated February 6, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92555 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 29, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, of Taal, Batangas, in Civil Case No. 66 is REINSTATED and UPHELD.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

SCD-2014-0021-MAR 2014-ARGUELLES

CASE 2014-0020: FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., PETITIONER, – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189434) IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER , – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189505) (12 MARCH 2014, SERENO, CJ) SUBJECT/S: THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS (SHORT TITLE: MARCOS VS REPUBLIC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 April 2012 filed by petitioners Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. are hereby DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE SANDIGANBAYAN DOES NOT POSSESS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR THE ARELMA PROCEEDS, WHICH ARE HELD BY MERRILL LYNCH IN THE UNITED STATES.   DOES THE PHILIPPINE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE RES WHICH IS IN THE U.S.?

YES. TO RULE OTHERWISE CONTRAVENES THE INTENT OF THE FORFEITURE LAW, AND INDIRECTLY PRIVILEGES VIOLATORS WHO ARE ABLE TO HIDE PUBLIC ASSETS ABROAD: BEYOND THE REACH OF THE COURTS AND THEIR RECOVERY BY THE STATE

XXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS?

FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTIONS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM.

XXXXXXXXXX

HOW IS JURISDICTION OVER THE REM ACQUIRED?

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES IS ACQUIRED EITHER

(A) BY THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER LEGAL PROCESS, WHEREBY IT IS BROUGHT INTO ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE LAW; OR

(B) AS A RESULT OF THE INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH THE POWER OF THE COURT IS RECOGNIZED AND MADE EFFECTIVE.

XXXXXXXXXX

IN THE CASE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, MUST THE PROPERTY BE IN THE ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE COURT?

NO. POTENTIAL CUSTODY IS SUFFICIENT.

In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.9   The concept of potential jurisdiction over the res, advanced by respondent, is not at all new. As early as Perkins v. Dizon, deciding a suit against a non-resident, the Court held: “In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.”

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

SCD-2014-0020-MAR 2014-MARCOS

CASE 2014-0019: T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION, STINNES HUANG, BEN HUANG and ROGELIO MADRIAGA, Petitioners – versus – T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION, ELPIDIO ZALDIVAR, DARI OS GONZALES, WILLIAM DOMINGO, BOBBY CASTILLO, JIMMY M. PASCUA, GERMANO M. BAJO, RICO L. MANZANO, ALLAN L. CALLORINA, ROMEO BLANCO, GILBERT M. GARCIA, CARLOS F. GERILLO, EDUARDO A. GRANDE, EDILBRANDO MARTICIO, VIVENCIO SUSANO, ROLANDO GARCIA, JR., MICHAEL FABABIER, ROWELL MADRIAGA, PRESNIL TOLENTINO, MARVIN VENTURA, FRANCISCO RIV ARES, PLACIDO TOLENTINO and ROLANDO ROMERO (G.R. No. 191714, 26 FEBRUARY 2014, MENDOZA) (BRIEF TITLE: T&H SHOPFITTERS ET AL. VS. T&H SHOPFITTERS CORP UNION ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the November 12, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its March 24, 2010 Resolution, in CA-G.R. SP No. 107188, are AFFIRMED, except with respect to the award of attorney’s fees which 1s hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED.”

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

SCD-2014-0019-FEB 2014-T & H SHOPFITTERS