Saturday, December 24, 2011

PASKO

Sa aldaw kan PASKO, nungka na maghagad kita ki "BRO" ta kumpleanyo niya ini... alagad guiromdomon sa punto de vista nin apresasyon an lambang saradit na biyaya na tunay na naglaladawan kan mahamis na ismayl sa satuyang lalawugon na dulot kan mga matrayonpong momento sa satuyang buhay sa kinaban na pinaghihiroan.. An kada pagrampaog, rekonesiron.. an mga viktorya, apresyaron... MAOGMANG PASKO SAINDO GABOS!

Monday, December 12, 2011

IMPEACHMENT

A Constitutionally mandated proceeding for the removal from office of the President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman for  "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes."
Sadly, recent developments unveil that the process of impeachment is, apparently, being used as a political weapon and strategy to get rid of government officials who are perceived to be "roadblocks" to Pnoy's "Tuwid-na-Daan."
A lamentable grand scheme that utterly undermines the constitutionally mandated term of office of these government officials and a complete disregard of the grounds and bases for impeachment..

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Judgment Day, the Project

Launched at the Las PiƱas City Hall of Justice early this year, Judgment Day is the simultaneous disposition of cases in one day. It effectively promotes the speedy resolution of criminal cases and awareness of the justice system. Envisioned as a measure that will boost the Enhanced Justice on Wheels or EJOW program on which it is based, Judgment Day is a success on its own. The EJOW which inspired the creation of Judgment Day, is another Supreme Court initiative geared towards improving our people's access to justice. This mobile court system program was established to bring justice closer to the poor, by providing a speedy resolution of conflicts through conciliation, mediation or adjudication. The Judgment Day and the EJOW are two of the most successful projects of the Judiciary in addressing the problems of our criminal justice system. The delivery of justice is a process and a duty shared by all justice sector agencies. Although each justice sector agency plays a specific role in a system of checks and balances, each must also recognize that its performance and the attainment of its ultimate objective depend on other agencies' performance, without compromising the independence of separate institutions. (Taken from the statement of Chief Justice Corona on the 1st National Criminal Justice Summit)

Monday, December 5, 2011

Corporation Code v. CARP

The Hacienda Luisita, Inc., cannot shield itself from the CARP coverage merely under the convenience of being a corporate entity. It should be underscored that the agricultural lands held by HLI by virtue of the Stock Distribution Scheme of CARP are no ordinary assets. These are special assets, because, originally these should have been distributed to the farmers-beneficiaries were it not for the approval of the Stock Distribution Scheme by the PARC. The HLI is no ordinary corporation as it was formed and organized precisely to make use of these agricultural lands actually intended for distribution to the farm workers of the Hacienda. Thus, it cannot shield itself from the coverage of CARP by invoking the Corporation Code. The obligations and remedies of the parties to the Stock Distribution Option Agreement are primarily governed by RA6657.

Operative Fact Doctrine, a rule of equity

As a complement of legal jurisdiction, equity "seeks to reach and complete justice where the courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are competent to do so." Equity regards the spirit and and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as it variously expressed by different courts. Remarkably, it is applied only in the absence of statutory law and never in contravention of said law.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

SC Disbars Lawyer

Lawyers should not deviate from the benchmarks set by Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession and must immediately return the money/property when due or upon demand. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Lawyering is not a business, it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
The Supreme Court recently disbarred a lawyer for obtaining money from a client without rendering proper legal services, and appropriating the insurance proceeds of the client's husband (A.C. No. 6246. Freeman v. Reyes, November 15, 2011).

SC Dismisses Petition Assailing EO giving CESO Rank to Gov't Lawyers

In a unanimous En Banc decision the Supreme Court found no reason to reach the merits of the petition and pass upon the validity of EO 883 as the said Executive Order had already been revoked by EO 3 issued by President Aquino. The Court ruled that to pass upon the validity of EO 883 would transgress the requirement of case and controversy as precondition for the Court's exercise of judicial review. The Court also ruled that petitioner does not allege to have suffered any violation of a right vested in him under EO 883. 
In the said EO 883 issued by then President Arroyo, officers and employees "occupying legal positions in the government executive service" who have obtained graduate degrees in law and successfully passed the Bar examinations were granted the rank of CESO III (G.R. No. 192926, Sana v. CESB, November 15, 2011)

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

DISSENTING OPINION, J. Sereno

The Rules of Court and Jurisprudence prescribe very stringent requirements before a Temporary Restraining Order can be issued. Among these is the requirement that the Temporary Restraining Order "may be granted only when: (a) application or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded xxx". So strong is the requirement of truthful allegations in the pleadings filed before the Court that many adverse inferences and disciplinary measures can be imposed against a person lying before the Court. This requirement of truthfulness is especially important when a provisional remedy, and more so when the remedy is sought to be granted ex-parte, is under consideration by the Court. When on its face, the material averments of a pleading contain self-contradictions, the least that the Court should do, is consider the other side of the claim. This is the situation with the Petition of the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It appears that she has given inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements before this Court.
Petitioner's travel itinerary abroad, for which the instant provisional remedy is being sought, appears not solely for medical reasons as claimed. If there is indeed some medical urgency and necessity for the petitioner to travel abroad, these should logically be limited only to locations where she seeks medical advice from known experts in the field. Why then should there be other countries of destinations that are included in her travel authority but not specifically mentioned for purposes of medical consultations? Contrary to her assertions of urgency and life-threatening health condition, petitioner had expressed her intention to participate in two conferences abroad during her supposed medical tour. It seems incongruous for petitioner who has asked the Department of Justice and this Court to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, to commit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk of worsening her physical condition.
If she has been shown to be prone to submitting to this Court documents belying her own allegations, this Court must pause, and at the very least, listen to the side of the Government.. (Justice Sereno dissenting, voted to defer the action on the TRO; G.R. No. 199034 and G.R. No. 199046, November 15, 2011).

Monday, November 7, 2011

contumacious conduct

A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly is disrespect to the Court's lawful order and directive. This conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Grave Misconduct

A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the established rule are present. While great respect is accorded to the factual findings of administrative agencies that misconduct was committed, but no substantial evidence was adduced to support the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the established rule, then the offense cannot be characterized as grave. It is only simple misconduct.

Government Employee's Plea of Privacy

The Supreme Court has recently held that the search by the government of an employee's office computer in connection with an investigation into work-related misconduct does not violate the employees constitutional right to privacy. 
The search was occasioned by an anonymous letter-complaint to the Civil Service Commission accusing the petitioner of lawyering for the parties with pending cases with the Civil Service Commission. The CSC Chairperson issued a Memorandum directing the Investigating Team to conduct investigation and specifically "to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamayan Muna and Legal Divisions." It was found out that most files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the Civil Service Commission and other tribunals. The Supreme Court found tenable the CSC's argument that the warrantless search of the computers was justified since "these furnished the easiest means for the employee to encode and store documents. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files, that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated drastic and immediate action." The Court further held that there was no violation of petitioner's right to privacy as this was negated by the CSC's policy regulating the use of office computers in its Memorandum No. 10, series of 2002 that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computers (Pollo v. David, G.R. No. 181881. October 18, 2011).

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

"Bar Ops" Banned

Bar Operations, such as setting up of streamers, send offs, and cheering squads are banned within the vicinity of the University of Santo Tomas, the venue of the 2011 Bar Examinations this November 6, 13, 20 and 27. 2011 Bar chairperson Justice Roberto A. Abad has directed that the streets surrounding the University of Santo Tomas campus (Dapitan St., P. Noval St., EspaƱa Boulevard, and Lacson Avenue) remain open to traffic for all four sundays of the Bar Examinations. Six Thousand Two Hundred (6,200) law graduates have been cleared by the Supreme Court to take this year's Bar Exams, which for the first time will be held in November as well as feature multiple-choice questions..
Good Luck to the 2011 Bar Examinees.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

first time on appeal; error of judgement

Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. It is well settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.
When a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of said jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgement. Procedural rules and jurisprudence emphatically declare that errors of judgement are not proper subjects of a special action for certiorari.
The submission of proof of payment of disturbance compensation is not jurisdictional as to deprive the DAR the power to act on an application for exemption.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

TRO against a Fellow Judge

The Supreme Court recently fined a Regional Trial Court judge for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop a Sheriff from enforcing the Writ of Execution by another Regional Trial Court judge. The SC ruled that the judge who issued the TRO clearly ignored the principle of judicial stability as the writ of execution sought to be restrained was issued by a co-equal court. The SC also held that the respondent judge should have refrained from acting on the petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for TRO because the RTC who issued the writ retains jurisdiction to rule on any question on the enforcement of the writ of execution. The Court further ruled that if the Sheriff committed any irregularity or exceeded his authority in the enforcement of the writ, the proper recourse was to file a motion, or an application for relief from the same court which issued the decision, not from any other court, or to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari. 
Rectifying this error by eventually dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction is not a defense that respondent judge can use. "His lack of familiarity with the rules in interfering with the acts of a co-equal court undermines public confidence in the judiciary through his demonstrated incompetence," the Court stressed.
The SC En Banc found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Misconduct and Malicious Complaint

Making false accusations and sowing intrigues are acts unbecoming of a public servant. They run against the principles of public service envisioned by the Constitution and by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Supreme Court stressed that these acts cannot be tolerated if we were to demand the highest degree of excellence and professionalism among public employees, and if we were to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts.
The SC recently found three employees of a lower court liable for misconduct for tape recording a conversation with a litigant and his counsel regarding the receipt by their co-employee from the latter of money for safekeeping, and thereafter filing a complaint for the alleged illegal deposit against said co-employee before the court. The SC found the process server guilty of gross misconduct for disregarding the terms of the Anti-Wiretapping Act within court premises, tape recording a conversation to secure it as evidence, and using said taped conversation as basis for a complaint against a co-employee. On the other hand, the court stenographers were found guilty of simple misconduct for their participation in the illegal tape recording of the subject conversation.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

SC Penalizes Lawyer for Notarial Lapses

Notaries public must be mindful of the significance of a notarial seal affixed on documents. They must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
The Supreme Court found guilty a lawyer for violating the notarial law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. In a decision penned by Justice Arturo M. Brion, the Court found that the lawyer notarized documents "either without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures." By his own admission, the lawyer disclosed that he affixed his signature on documents prepared and drafted by his secretary without reading them and without ascertaining what the documents purported to be, and completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial Practice. The Supreme Court further held that the respondent's age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the serious lapses he committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public. The lawyer cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not his secretary, should be held accountable for these deeds.

Monday, September 5, 2011

TRO


To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. The applicant's right must be clear and unmistakable, otherwise the issuance of the writ despite the absence of a clear legal right constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights. There must exist an actual right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.

Monday, August 15, 2011

House Bill No. 5111

Congressman Edcel Lagman, 1st District-Albay, has proposed in this Bill that only the courts should be allowed to issue hold departure orders and other travel restrictions. The rationale behind this proposed bill, says Congressman Lagman, is that - "A watchlist order has been perjoratively likened to a rouges' gallery, a roll of infamy and a scroll of criminals whose movements have to be monitored to avert flight from justice. Arbitrary inclusion in the watchlist order is a virtual incarceration by innuendo and conviction by publicity. The power to bar a person from exercising his or her constitutional right to travel as stated in Article III Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should not be granted to a partisan government official. This authority or jurisdiction should not be exercised by or delegated to agencies headed by presidential political appointees who succumb to partisan pressures or defer to political importuning at the expense of civil liberties."

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Bachelor of Laws, a Master's Degree...

The Bachelor of Laws is a higher degree requiring completion of a first bachelor's degree proceeding to the professional degree program. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in an en banc Resolution No. 038, series of 2001 has decreed that the degree of Bachelor of Laws with corresponding Bar eligibility is equivalent to a relevant Master's Degree.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Good Faith...

is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to speak an unconscionable advantage. An individual's personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in the honest belief in the validity of one's right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another (PNB v. De Jesus, cited in A.M. No. 2011-04-SC. July 5, 2011).

Monday, July 11, 2011

Lis Mota

The Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised is determined. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.

the Operative Fact doctrine

A void act, though in law a mere scrap of paper, nonetheless confers legitimacy upon past acts or omissions done in reliance thereof. The existence of a statute or executive order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal consequences are attached.

Doctrine of Necessary Implication

The conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan. Hence, to deny the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) such revocatory power would reduce it into a toothless agency of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), because the very same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) would be without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it (Hacienda Luisita Inc., et al v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101. July 5, 2011).

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Just Compensation, decision of DARAB

The DARAB decision setting the amount of just compensation is merely preliminary and not executory if challenged before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Execution pending "appeal" of the DARAB decision is allowed only on meritorious grounds. Even then, it is the SAC, not the DARAB, that can grant execution pending "appeal" because the SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over just compensation cases. The determination of the amount of just compensation is a judicial function that cannot be usurped by administrative agencies.

Monday, June 13, 2011

CLOA holder v. application for exemption

It should be remembered that an application for CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 is non-adversarial or non-litigious in nature. Nowhere in the rule is it required that occupants of a landholding should be notified of an initiated or pending exemption application. Once the landholding is declared as CARP-exempt, the previous issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is erroneous. Hence, the holders thereof hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.

Interpretative Rule

Interpretative rules promulgated by Administrative Agencies interpret, clarify or explain regulations under which the administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of an interpretative rule is no more than interpret the statute. Simply, the rules tries to say what the statute means. An interpretative rule need not be published and neither is a hearing required since it is issued by the administrative body as an incident of its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify statutory provisions for proper observance by the people.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Administrative Cases

Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the appellate courts. This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. As such, their findings of fact are binding upon the Supreme Court unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion, or when it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. In administrative cases, the injury sought to be remedied is not merely the loss of public money or property. More significant are the pernicious effects of such action on the orderly administration of government services. Acts that go against the established rules of conduct for government personnel bring harm to the civil service, whether they result in loss or not. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee, but the improvement of the  public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property. Greater damage comes with the public's perception of corruption and incompetence in the government (Jerome Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479. April 12, 2011).

Special Courts

Per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 23-2008, the following are designated Special Courts to hear, try and decide environmental cases in the Fifth Judicial Region:
Branch 1, Legazpi City
Branch 13, Ligao City
Branch 15, Tabaco City
Branch 25, Naga City
Branch 32, Pili Camarines Sur
Branch 35, Iriga City
Branch 38, Daet Camarines Norte
Branch 53, Sorsogon City
                                         Branch 47, Masbate City
These courts shall try and decide violations of environmental laws, viz; Revised Forestry Code (PD705); Marine Pollution (PD979); Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (RA6969); Peoples' Small Scale Mining Act (RA7076); National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA7586); Philippine Mining Act (RA7942); Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA8371); Philippine Fisheries Code (RA8550); Clean Air Act (RA8749); Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA9003); National Caves and Caves Resources Management Act (RA9072); Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA9147); Chainsaw Act (RA9175); Clean Water Act (RA9275).

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

BAR Matter No. 2265

Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations.
One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar exams that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject covered. This has been regarded as too general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners. A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar exams that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, huge number of candidates taking the exams annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-type exams difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction. A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type exams but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice of law.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Wrong Mode of Appeal

The proper mode of appeal from decisions of Regional Trial Courts sitting as Special Agrarian Courts is by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The reference to the Rules of Court means that the specific rules for petitions for review in the Rules of Court and other relevant procedures in appeals filed before the Court of Appeals shall be followed in appealed decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Considering that RA6657 cannot and does not provide the details on how the petition for review shall be conducted, a suppletory application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court is necessary. In fact Section 61 of RA6657 uses the word "review" to designate the mode by which the appeal is to be effected. The reference therefore by Section 61 to the Rules of Court only means that the procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be followed for appeals in agrarian cases.
The adoption of a petition for review as the mode of appeal is justified in order to "hasten" the resolution of cases involving issues on just compensation of expropriated lands under RA6657. The need for absolute dispatch in the determination of just compensation. Such objective is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for review. Unlike an ordinary appeal, a petition for review dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted.
A resort to a wrong mode of appeal is fatal to one's cause as it results in the decision appealed from in becoming final and executory. Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right but is merely a statutory privilege (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Diaz, G.R. No. 190660. April 11, 2011).

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Cityhood Laws Constitutional

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-6 denied for lack of merit and with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of its February 15, 2011 ruling that declared constitutional several Republic Acts that converted some municipalities into cities. The Court said "we should not lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the cityhood laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have also complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code. The SC stressed that congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the cityhood laws be exempt from the coverage of RA9009, which imposes a higher income requirement of PhP100 million for the creation of cities.
This issue has put the Court in the limelight with its repeated flip-flopping in this case. But, Justice Abad opined that such charge was unfair. He stressed that the Justices did not decide to change their minds on a mere whim. The two contending parties filed motions for reconsideration and the Justices had no options but perform their duties and vote on the same. 
No one can dispute the right of a judge, acting on a motion for reconsideration, to change his mind regarding the case. The rules are cognizant of the fact that human judges could err and that it would merely be fair and right for them to correct their perceived errors upon a motion for reconsideration.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

PD 27 v. RA 6657

Which Agrarian Law between Presidential Decree No. 27 and Republic Act No. 6657 should apply in the determination of just compensation on lands covered under PD27? 
The agrarian reform process is still incomplete when the just compensation to be paid to the landowners has yet to be settled. Land valuation process of rice and/or corn lands placed under the coverage of PD 27/EO 228, which has not been completed upon the effectivity or passage of RA6657 should be determined and the process concluded under RA6657 and not under PD 27. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 more so if the DAR  failed to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. It would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners to compute just compensation using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Issue raised first time on appeal

While it is true that an issue which was neither alleged in the complaint nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process, the same is not without exception. The Court of Appeals, under Section 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure can in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve factual issues. After all, technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, and not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules may be allowed to attain the prime objective of dispensing justice, for dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts (Milestone Farms Inc., v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 182332. February 23, 2011).

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Lights Out

EARTH HOUR 2011
For the past two years, the Philippines recorded the most number of participating towns and cities in turning off their lights for one hour - a message on taking action against global warming.
This year Earth Hour will be observed on Saturday (March 26) from 8:30 to 9:30 in the evening. Let us again do an hour-long sacrifice by switching off power in our homes, offices, schools and other establishments to make a stand against climate change.
An hour of darkness will certainly be a great relief for mother earth.
"The greater darkness we produce on Earth Hour, the brighter our tomorrow will be."

Thursday, March 17, 2011

To the New Lawyers

CONGRATULATIONS to the 982 new lawyers! Welcome to the legal profession.. Always be guided by your Oath. Keep in mind that admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves public service.. God Bless and walk with courage upon this path you have chosen.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

SC amends rule on summoning foreign firms to court

Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court used to state that if a foreign private entity is involved as defendant in a legal suit, it can be summoned to court through its resident agent designated by law for that purpose, or if no such agent through the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
In an en banc session, the Supreme Court now allow the following ways to summon to court foreign private juridical entities not registered in the Philippines or have no resident agent, (1) serving the summons personally through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs; (2) publishing the summons once in a general circulation newspaper in the country where the defendant may be found; (3) by fax or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service.
The new rule paves the way for the filing of a suit against a foreign private corporation even without a resident agent in the Philippines. Under the old rules, summons could only be served on the resident agent , if any, and in the absence of one, through the Securities and Exchange Commission or Department of Trade and Industry.

Personality of LBP vis-a-vis SAC

Can the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) file a petition with the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), questioning the findings of the DAR Regional/Provincial Adjudicator on the determination of just compensation of lands covered under Agrarian Reform?
Davao Fruits Corporation (DFC) contends that in filing the determination of just compensation, LBP acted as the expropriator and dispenser of police power which are the sovereign powers of the State. DFC argues that LBP has no authority to file said action as it would invalidate the findings of the Adjudicators who are tasked to determine the initial valuation of lands placed under land reform.
The Land Bank of the Philippines is an agency created primarily to provide financial support in all phases of agrarian reform. Once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the indespensible role of LBP begins. Land Bank is not merely a nominal party in the determination of just compensation, as such LBP possessed the legal personality to institute a petition for the determination of just compensation in the SAC (Davao Fruits Corporation v. LBP, G.R. No. 181566. March 9, 2011).

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Optional Retirement, consent of employee essential

Voluntary acceptance by the employees of an early retirement age option is needed to make such optional retirement valid. Thus, an employee whose employment is terminated, on the basis of a provision in a retirement plan that was not freely assented to by said employee, is deemed to have been illegally dismissed. The Court held that" a retirement plan giving the employer the option to retire its employees below the ages provided by law must be assented to and accepted by the latter, otherwise, its adhesive imposition will amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law."

Monday, February 28, 2011

Regular Courts v. DARAB; recovery of possesion

Where a question of jurisdiction between the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is at the core of a dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial body or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed  irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. In the same vein, jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in the an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction will become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. Only the DARAB, as the DAR's quasi-judicial body, can determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP.
The absence of tenurial arrangement, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, cannot be overlooked. When no juridical tie of landownership and tenancy is allege, a controversy cannot be categorized as an agrarian dispute. Hence, jurisdiction is with the regular courts.
(DEARBC v. Jesus Sangumay & Sonny Labunos, G.R. No. 180013. January 31, 2011)

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Impeachment: One-Year Bar Rule

The Supreme Court does not downplay the importance of an impeachment complaint, for it is the matchstick that kindles the candle of impeachment proceedings. The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the candle, unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.
Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time. What is important is that there should only be one candle that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.
A prospective complainant, regardless of ill motives or best intentions, can wittingly or unwittingly desecrate the entire process by the expediency of submitting a haphazard complaint out of sheer hope to be the first in line. One needs only to be an early bird even without seriously intending to catch the worm, when the process is precisely intended to effectively weed out "worms" in high offices which could otherwise be ably caught by other prompt birds within the ultra-limited season (Ma. Merceditas N. Guitierez v. The House of Rep., Committee on Justice, et al. G.R. No. 193459. February 15, 2011).

Monday, February 14, 2011

Execution by the Sheriff

A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute it according to its mandate. The lifetime of a writ of execution is without limit for as long as the judgment has not been satisfied, but is returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after receipt of the writ, the sheriff shall report to the court and state the  reason therefore. The Sheriff is mandated to make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until judgment is satisfied in full. Sheriffs must exert every effort to see to it that the final stage in the litigation process is carried out in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to their inefficiency renders it useless. Worse, the parties prejudiced by the inaction tend to condemn the entire judicial system for the lapse (German Agunday v. Lemuel Velasco, A.M. No. P-05-2003. December 6, 2010).

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Bar Exams update

The Supreme Court recently approved the schedule of the filling of the Petitions to take the Bar Exams to July 1, 2011 up to August 15, 2011 considering that the date of the Bar Examinations has been moved from September to November 2011.
The change in the schedule is attributed to the change in the Bar Exams' date, which was moved to give time for law professors and students to adjust to the approved reforms in the exams.
The venue for this year's Bar Examinations will be at the University of Santo Tomas.

Execution not stayed

Specialis Derogat Generali.. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other.
The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supersedes the discretion given to the Court of Appeals in Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to order the stay of a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case appealed to it (Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. No. 175573. October 5, 2010).

Monday, January 31, 2011

Tax Declaration v. On-Site Inspection

The Department of Agrarian Reform argued that the tax declarations covering the lands characterized them as agricultural lands and, thus, detracted from the claim that they were used for livestock purposes.
It has been held that "there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribed any further inquiry." Tax declarations are not the sole basis of the classification of the land; they are not conclusive so as to prevent their exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage as lands devoted to livestock-raising. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer's on site inspection and actual investigation showing that the lands were being used for livestock-grazing are more convincing in the determination of the nature of the lands.
Just because the on site investigation was belatedly conducted three or four years after the effectivity of the law (CARL) does not perforce make it unworthy of belief or unfit to be offered as substantial evidence. Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or bias, the findings of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, are to be accorded great probative value, owing to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties  (RP rep by DAR v. Salvador Lopez Agri Bus., Corp; Salvador Lopez Agri Bus., Corp v. DAR, G.R. No. 178895 & G.R. No. 179071. January 10, 2011).

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

intertwined issues

When the complaint in the petition seeks for the Regional Trial Court to cancel Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued to the farmer-beneficiaries and the TCTs issued pursuant thereto, these reliefs cannot be granted by the RTC since the complaint essentially prays for the annulment of the coverage of the property within the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), an incident involving the implementation of RA6657, as amended. These are matters relating to terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of a tribunal over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. It is also settled that jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy. Thus, if the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute must be addressed and resolved by the DARAB (DAR v. RTC Judge Br.XII of  Zamboanga City, et al. G.R. No. 163285, February 27, 2008).

The Power of Judicial Review

"When the Supreme Court invokes its power of judicial review, it does not assert its moral ascendancy over the other co-equal branches of government. It only reminds all and sundry of the non-negotiable supremacy of the constitution."
The power of judicial review is not an exercise in dominance by the Court or interference in the affairs of other branches of government, the constitution vested the Court the power to review the actions of co-equal branches of government for the purpose of checking transgressions on the constitution. The Judiciary cannot ignore its duty as vanguard of constitutionalism and the rule of law in our system of government.
While the Judiciary may not have either the power of the sword as wielded by the Executive or the purse as controlled by Congress, it wields the power of the pen or the authority to interpret the constitution and the laws. The power of judicial review is the means established by the constitution to preserve the peace and stability of our political system so that the possibility of a constitutional crises or clash of powers may be avoided.
(Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, on the occasion of PHILCONSA's 49th anniversary)