CASE DIGEST : JOVEN AND GARCIA VS SPOUSES TULIO GR 204567 GAERLAN

[ G.R. No. 204567, August 04, 2021 ]

EMILIANO D. JOVEN, AND CICERO V. GARCIA PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES RAUL L. TULIO AND CRISTINA PANGANIBAN TULIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS : At the core of this dispute is a commercial property in San Fernando, Pampanga, owned by Sps. Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio, and leased to petitioners Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia from November 1, 1999 to October 31, 2013, during which the petitioners constructed a two-storey mall at their own expense. Disputes arose over unpaid rentals and alleged forcible entry when respondents reassumed possession on June 3, 2000, prompting the petitioners to file a forcible entry complaint. The MTCC ruled in favor of respondents’ lawful possession but ordered reimbursement of advance rentals and half the cost of improvements. The RTC issued conflicting rulings: first, denying reimbursement for improvements and reducing advance rental refunds; later, upon reconsideration, it ruled respondents committed forcible entry and ordered repayment for improvements and rentals; finally, a subsequent RTC modification reverted the decision, recognizing respondents’ lawful possession and limiting refunds to P250,000. Petitioners then filed a Rule 42 Petition for Review with the CA, which dismissed it on technical grounds, citing defective notarization, verification, and lack of attached RTC/MTCC records. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present recourse.

ISSUE : WON the CA erred in dismissing outright petitioners' Rule 42 Petition for Review

HELD : In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should facilitate, not obstruct, justice. While the CA dismissed petitioners’ Rule 42 petition due to alleged defects in notarization, verification, certification against forum shopping, and failure to attach documents, the Court found that these deficiencies were not fatal. Verification and certification were deemed substantially compliant because petitioners shared a common interest, and the notarization defects were cured after submission of the notary’s commission. The failure to attach all pleadings was insufficient for outright dismissal, as only relevant documents are required, and the material allegations were already summarized in prior rulings. Guided by the principle that cases should be resolved on their merits rather than technicalities, the Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA Resolutions, and reinstated the case, instructing the CA to proceed with due deliberation to decide the matter on the merits.

CASE DIGEST : LAGAO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GE 217721 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 217721. September 15, 2021 ]

BENJIE LAGAO Y GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : In this case, petitioner Benjie Lagao y Garcia was charged with homicide for allegedly attacking Anthony Sumad-ong Nerida on February 20, 2008, resulting in injuries that caused the victim’s death two days later. During trial, prosecution witnesses—De Guzman, Cruz, and Nerida Sr., the victim’s father—testified that the victim identified the petitioner as the assailant, describing that he was struck on the nose and the back of the head with a hard object. De Guzman and Cruz observed the victim’s bleeding wounds but noted he did not seek medical attention. The defense denied the petitioner’s involvement, and Dr. Bernardo Parado, Municipal Health Officer, conducted an autopsy, reporting that the victim had a superficial laceration under the skin but also clarified that the ultimate cause of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt force injury” in the occipital area. The autopsy and testimonies became key evidence in establishing the link between the petitioner and the fatal injury. The RTC found Benjie Lagao y Garcia guilty of homicide, sentencing him to 8 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day of imprisonment, ordering him to pay actual damages of ₱18,600, moral damages of ₱50,000, death indemnity of ₱50,000, and costs. The RTC relied on the victim’s declarations to witnesses De Guzman and Cruz identifying the petitioner as the attacker, giving full credence to these testimonies since no ill motive was shown. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction, ruling that the witnesses’ accounts were not hearsay because they only proved that the victim made the statements, not the truth of the statements themselves, and considered them as part of res gestae. The CA held that these testimonies, along with Dr. Parado’s findings, outweighed the petitioner’s denial, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 20, 2015.

ISSUE : WON the CA erred in affirming the judgement of the RTC 

HELD : The Court found merit in the petition for review, noting that the CA and RTC erred in affirming the conviction. The ruling emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to conflicting evidence regarding the cause of the victim’s death: the death certificate cited natural causes, while the autopsy suggested death from blunt force trauma. Applying the equipoise rule, any reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death favored acquittal. Furthermore, the Court held that the victim’s statements identifying the petitioner were inadmissible: they did not qualify as a dying declaration because the victim was not under the consciousness of impending death, and they were not part of res gestae because there was a significant lapse of time and intervening events that allowed reflection, negating spontaneity. Without direct eyewitnesses or admissible declarations, the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner’s identity as the assailant. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC and CA decisions, and acquitted Benjie Lagao y Garcia of homicide.

CASE DIGEST : SALVATION ARMY VS SSS GR 230095 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 230095, September 15, 2021 ]

THE SALVATION ARMY, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : The Salvation Army, a non-stock, non-profit religious organization in the Philippines, sought to have its officers’ SSS membership status converted from “employees” to “voluntary or self-employed.” The SSS denied this request, and its denial was affirmed by the Social Security Commission (SSC). Petitioning to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Rule 43 petition, The Salvation Army argued for the change, but the CA dismissed the petition, upholding the SSC’s resolution. The CA held that all elements of an employer-employee relationship existed between the organization and its officers, meaning they were covered by the Social Security Law (R.A. No. 1161, as amended) and entitled to benefits, and that waivers executed by the officers could not unilaterally alter this status. The petition for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.

ISSUE : 1) WON the petitioner's religious ministers are its employees 2) WON in ruling upon such issue, the Court infringes upon the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion

HELD : The petition of The Salvation Army is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact, and findings of fact by administrative agencies, supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are binding. The Court held that the relationship between the petitioner and its officers/ministers is secular in nature, relating to administrative functions rather than religious doctrine, and thus falls within the Court’s review. Applying the four-fold test—selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control—the Court concluded that the petitioner exercises control over its ministers, provides them with allowances equivalent to wages, can terminate their services, and directs their duties, establishing an employer-employee relationship. Coverage under the SSS is mandatory for such employees, and applying the Social Security Law to the petitioner does not violate the constitutional separation of Church and State or the non-establishment clause, as the funds involved are member contributions, not public funds, and the benefits are extended by virtue of employment, not religious status. Consequently, the CA’s decision dismissing the petition and affirming the SSC’s resolutions was affirmed.

CASE DIGEST : BERCES VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MAYOR OF TABACO CITY GR 222557 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 222557. September 29, 2021 ]

ENGR. JUAN B. BERCES, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE MAYOR OF TABACO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : Engr. Juan B. Berces, City Planning and Development Officer of Tabaco City, was administratively charged after he and two co-employees were caught on August 5, 2011 drinking inside the City Planning and Development Office in violation of LGU memorandum orders prohibiting such acts; despite his apology and admission of a lapse of judgment, Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro formally charged him with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and dismissed him from service on February 13, 2012. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially downgraded his liability to Simple Misconduct, finding no corrupt motive and no direct relation to his official duties, and imposed a six-month suspension with reinstatement, but upon the former mayor’s motion for reconsideration—which was later sought to be withdrawn by the succeeding mayor—the CSC reversed itself and reinstated the penalty of dismissal, ruling that holding a drinking session in the office involved misuse of government property and funds. Berces challenged the CSC ruling via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, but the CA dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy, holding that he should have filed a Rule 43 petition for review, and later denied reconsideration; meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General agreed that the procedural remedy was incorrect but argued, in the interest of justice, that Berces should only be liable for simple misconduct, while Mayor Lagman-Luistro maintained that dismissal for grave misconduct was proper.

ISSUE : WON petitioner was correctly found guilty of grave misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service along with the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.

HELD : The Court held that while CSC decisions are generally reviewable via a Rule 43 petition and not by certiorari under Rule 65, the Court of Appeals erred in outrightly dismissing Berces’s petition on procedural grounds because substantial justice warranted a relaxation of the rules, considering his 15 years of government service and the nullity of the assailed CSC resolution. It ruled that Mayor Demetriou, as successor mayor, validly withdrew former Mayor Lagman-Luistro’s motion for reconsideration of CSC Decision No. 130159 pursuant to Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, thereby leaving no pending motion that could prevent said decision from attaining finality. Consequently, CSC Decision No. 130159—finding Berces liable only for simple misconduct and imposing a six-month suspension—became final and executory, rendering CSC Resolution No. 1301575, which reinstated the penalty of dismissal, void for violating the doctrine of immutability of judgments. The Court further clarified that Berces’s act of drinking inside the office after office hours did not constitute grave misconduct for lack of corruption or willful intent, and was not even misconduct strictly speaking as it bore no direct relation to official duties, though the final finding of simple misconduct could no longer be disturbed due to finality. Accordingly, the Court reversed the CA, declared CSC Resolution No. 1301575 void, and reinstated CSC Decision No. 130159.

CASE DIGEST : PEOPLE VS PERALTA GR 227022 GAERLAN

 

[ GR No. 227022, Sep 29, 2021 ]

PEOPLE v. CRIS PERALTA Y DE GUZMAN +

DECISION

FACTS : The case involves Cris Peralta y De Guzman’s appeal from his conviction for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, arising from a jeepney holdup at around 3:30 a.m. on December 23, 2004 along Pasig Boulevard, Pasig City, where Cris, co-accused Jayson Abila, and two others declared a holdup, robbed the passengers, and, on the occasion thereof, shot and stabbed Police Officer 3 Florencio Antolin, who later died from gunshot wounds. Eyewitnesses Francisco and Fernando Antolin, the victim’s sons and passengers in the jeepney, positively identified Cris as the one who shot their father, corroborated by medico-legal findings and police investigation, while Cris interposed a defense of denial and alibi, claiming illegal arrest and mistaken identification. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, rejected the alibi, and convicted Cris, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering payment of civil indemnity and damages; Jayson’s case was archived due to his being at large. On appeal, Cris argued inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies and the improbability of identification due to lighting conditions, but the Court of Appeals held that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and immaterial, that the lighting was sufficient for identification, and that the eyewitness identification was clear and categorical, thus affirming the conviction for robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE : WON the CA is correct

HELD : Robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is a composite crime where the intent to rob precedes the killing, and homicide—used in its generic sense—is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, regardless of the time, manner, or victim of the killing; intent to gain may be inferred from the violent taking of property, and proof of the exact value or presentation of the stolen items is unnecessary. In this case, it was conclusively established that on December 23, 2004, four assailants declared a jeepney holdup in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, forcibly took valuables from the passengers, including the service firearm and personal effects of PO3 Florencio Antolin, and that during the robbery, Cris Peralta shot Antolin twice, causing his death, while the stab wounds inflicted by the other assailants were superficial and non-fatal. The testimonies of Antolin’s sons, Francisco and Fernando, corroborated by other passengers and medico-legal findings, proved all elements of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt, with their identification of Cris deemed credible due to sufficient lighting, close proximity, unobstructed view, and prompt identification shortly after the crime. Alleged inconsistencies in minor details were held immaterial as they did not relate to the elements of the offense or the fatal shooting, while Cris’s defenses of denial and alibi failed for lack of corroboration and physical impossibility. Consequently, the Court affirmed Cris Peralta’s conviction for robbery with homicide and modified the damages awarded by increasing moral damages and granting exemplary damages in favor of the heirs of PO3 Antolin.

CASE DIGEST : ATTY. KAYABAN VS ATTY PALICTE AC No 10815 GAERLAN

 

EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 10815 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5089). October 05, 2021 ]

ATTY. VICENTE ROY L. KAYABAN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE, III, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

FACTS : This case arose from a verified disbarment complaint filed on June 26, 2015 by the complainant against respondent Atty. Leonardo B. Palicte III for misrepresentation and unauthorized use of complainant’s name and identity in Civil Case No. 82422 pending before the MeTC of Makati City, after complainant received a court order directing him to explain his non-appearance in a case he had no knowledge of and never entered as counsel. Investigation revealed that an Entry of Appearance had been filed using complainant’s name as part of “Kayaban Palicte & Associates,” allegedly bearing a forged signature, which complainant denied and supported with specimens of his genuine signatures and pleadings. Despite respondent’s apology and filing of a notice of change of address, complainant maintained that respondent continued to misrepresent him as counsel, prompting the disbarment case, alongside an Ombudsman complaint where respondent was later found guilty of Less Serious Dishonesty and suspended for nine months. Respondent denied forgery, claimed an informal law partnership with complainant, asserted prior substitution of counsel, and argued lack of evidence and breach of confidentiality by complainant. After investigation, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and reduced the penalty to a two-year suspension, noting respondent’s status as a first-time offender and the Ombudsman’s finding of less serious dishonesty, with the case elevated to the Court for final resolution.

ISSUE : WON the IBP Governors was correct

HELD : The Court adopted the IBP Resolution and found respondent Atty. Leonardo B. Palicte III guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, 10, and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for misrepresentation and dishonesty in unauthorizedly using complainant’s name and address and making it appear that complainant was counsel of record in Civil Case No. 82422. The Court held that respondent knew of and participated in the filing of the disputed Entry of Appearance, failed to effectively rectify the misrepresentation despite repeated demands, and displayed a lack of candor, remorse, and respect for the courts, with circumstantial evidence—such as his apology letter, subsequent pleadings, and similarities in documents—supporting his liability. It further ruled that complainant did not violate the confidentiality rule by disclosing the disbarment case in the Ombudsman complaint, as such disclosure was necessary and the rule is not absolute. While respondent’s acts showed failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and his four-fold duty to society, the profession, the courts, and clients, the Court agreed that disbarment was too harsh considering this was his first offense and the acts were not committed in the performance of his official duties. Accordingly, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, sternly warned against repetition, and directed to immediately serve his suspension and notify the courts and concerned offices.

CASE DIGEST : QUITALIG VS QUITALIG GR 207985 GAERLAN

 

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 207958. August 04, 2021 ]

MIGUELA QUITALIG, PETITIONER, VS. ELADIO QUITALIG, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : The case arose from a complaint for recovery of possession, damages, and injunction filed by Miguela Quitalig before the MTCC of Tarlac City, claiming ownership and possession of a 19,798-square-meter portion of Lot 5358 which she acquired from Paz G. Mendoza on March 19, 2001, and which she and her predecessor allegedly possessed, cultivated, and harvested as owners for over 30 years. She alleged that in May 2004, Eladio Quitalig forcibly entered the land with armed men, fenced and cultivated it, took the crops, and ousted her despite repeated demands to vacate. Eladio denied these claims, asserting that the land was never possessed by Miguela and that he had been in actual possession as an installed tenant of the owner Bonifacio dela Cruz, supported by lease rental receipts. The MTCC ruled for Miguela, ordering Eladio to vacate and pay attorney’s fees, and the RTC affirmed on appeal, finding Miguela’s ownership sufficiently proven and Eladio’s possession unjustified. On petition for review, the CA, while ruling that no tenancy relationship existed to vest jurisdiction in the DARAB, nevertheless reversed the MTCC and RTC, holding that Miguela failed to substantiate her allegations and that Eladio’s evidence was more credible; Miguela’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present Rule 45 petition.

ISSUE : WON The CA erred in reversing the decisions of the MTCC and RTC

HELD : The Supreme Court held the petition meritorious and ruled that the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely erred in reversing the MTCC and RTC, both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, Eladio’s petition for review before the CA was defective for non-compliance with Sections 1–3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, as it was initially filed without verification, certification against forum shopping, and certified true copies of the assailed decisions, and Eladio failed to allege or prove any special circumstance justifying relaxation of the rules, making dismissal mandatory. Substantively, Eladio’s defense—that he was a tenant of Bonifacio dela Cruz and that the land was not part of Miguela’s property—was unsupported by evidence; tenancy between Miguela and Eladio never existed, divesting DARAB of jurisdiction, and Eladio himself admitted that Miguela’s property was covered by a Torrens title, which constitutes conclusive proof of ownership and carries with it the right to possession. The tax declaration relied upon by Eladio and accepted by the CA merely indicated a claim of ownership and could not prevail over Miguela’s Torrens title. The CA further erred in ruling on an unassigned issue and in finding Miguela’s evidence insufficient despite her registered title. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA decision and resolution, and reinstated the MTCC and RTC decisions ordering Eladio to vacate the property.