The concept of legal standing is similar to the concept of "interest" in private suits: it refers to "a present substantial interest", not a mere expectancy or a future, contingency, subordinate, or consequential interest." Thus, under the Rules of Court, actions must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.

"FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO SURVIVE"

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

CESB, et al v. CSC, et al (March 7, 2017)

The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) cannot in the guise of enforcing and administering the policies of the Third Level, validly impose qualifications in addition to what the law prescribe. It cannot add another layer of qualification requirement which is not otherwise specified in the statutes. In promulgating the assailed resolution (CESB Resolution No. 918), which sets out additional qualifications for the subject positions in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), the CESB has overstepped the bounds of its authority. Positions in the PAO that do not require Third Level Eligibility and CESO rank for purposes of tenurial security: (a) Chief Public Attorney; (b) Deputy Chief Public Attorneys; (c) Regional Public Attorneys; (d) Assistant Regional Public Attorneys.

The case involves the classification of positions belonging to the Career Executive Service (CES) and the qualifications for these posts, which matters are clearly within the scope of the powers granted to the CESB under the Administrative Code and the Integrated Reorganizational Plan. However, this fact alone does not push the matter beyond the reach of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). To require the occupants of the subject PAO positions to possess Third Level Eligibility would be to amend the law and defeat its spirit and intent. It would be improper for the CESB to impose this additional qualification as a pre-requisite to permanent appointments. To do so would amend and overrule Congress.

Land Valuation on CARP covered land

Be reminded that although the potential use of an expropriated property may be factored in, especially in instances where there is a significant improvement in the locality of the expropriated property, that factor, however, should not be the controlling component in the determination of just compensation. Otherwise, it will run afoul on the well-settled principle that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined essentially by its character and its price at the time of the taking, not by its potential use.

Jurisdiction

For the DAR Adjudication Board, Regional Adjudicators & Provincial Adjudicators to acquire jurisdiction over a case, there must be a prima facie showing that there is a tenurial arrangement or tenancy relationship between the parties. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are the key jurisdictional allegations that must appear on the face of the complaint.

Judicial error

Not every error or mistake committed by the judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions will make him liable, unless his act is tainted with bad faith or a deliberate intent to do an injustice. To hold a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, his decisions/orders must not only be contrary to existing law or jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.

Judicial Clemency

Judicial Clemency is not a privilege or right that can be availed of at anytime. Clemency as an act of mercy removing any disqualification should be balanced with preservation of public confidence in courts. Proof of remorse and reformation is one of the requirements to grant judicial clemency

Personal Data Sheet

Civil Service rules mandate the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) as a requirement for employment in the government. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his/her personal background, qualification and eligibility. Considering that the truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for employment in the Judiciary (as well as in any government agency), the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. Time and again, the Court has stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from the judges to the most junior clerk, is circumscribed with heavy responsibility. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense.

Right to retention is a constitutional right; Item 4 of DAR A.O. 05-06 is null & void.

Laws, as well as the issuances promulgated to implement them, enjoy the presumption of validity. However, administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void, and the courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations.

ITEM 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2006 does not indicate that a multiple or series of transfers/sales of land would result in the loss of retention rights. Neither do they provide that the multiple or series of transfers or sales amount to the waiver of retention right of the landowner. Thus, ITEM 4 of said DAR Administrative Order is patently null and void. The presumption of validity cannot be accorded to it for being ultra vires. Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law as they cannot extend or amend a legislative enactment. Administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement.

Admittedly, administrative regulations issued by the Department Head in conformity with the law have the force of law. However, since Department Heads exercise the rule making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is requisite that they should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power. Otherwise, they would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body.

While the Court is mindful of the DAR's commitment to the implementation of Agrarian Reform, it must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. There must be no over reaching. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth.

(GR No. 176549, January 20, 2016).

Inhibition

Judges must be free to judge without pressure or influence from external sources or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation or to the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they do and dispositions they make in the performance of their duties and functions. Voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience  and sound discretion on the part of the judge based on his/her rational and logical assessment of the case. Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are not enough, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.

Failure to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys

While practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession. The unauthorized practice of law by one assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court and acting as such without authority, constitute indirect contempt of court. This applies to law students and Bar candidates. They are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Failure to Sign the Roll of Attorneys for those who passed the Bar does not make one a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. Hence, practicing law without having signed the Roll of Attorneys is considered unauthorized practice of law.

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undergo continuing legal education to ensure that throughout their career they keep abreast of law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standard of the practice of law.

Failure to comply with the MCLE requirements jeopardized the causes of clients because the pleadings filed could be stricken off from the records and considered invalid.

A lawyer's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Right to Bail

Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided the continued incarceration of the accused is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Denying bail despite imperiling the health and life of the accused would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.

Right to Appeal

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law. An appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviation from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdiction against needless delays. It is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence failure to appeal renders the judgment final and executory. Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeaal within the prescribed period, so also does the prevailing party have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of a decision in his favor.

disbarment

A lawyer must be disbarred for committing a crime which does not only show his disregard of his oath as a government official but is likewise of such a nature to negatively affect his qualification as a lawyer.

The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable - lawyers in whom courts and the public at large may repose confidence. Thus, whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behaviour disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, the Court shall not hesitate to rid the profession of odious members (A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015).

determination of just compensation of CARP covered land

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), has jurisdiction to determine just compensation of CARP covered landholdings at the very first instance, and the petitioner need not pass through the DARAB for initial valuation. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function, which is vested in the RTC acting as SAC. The SAC is not an appellate reviewer of the DAR decision in administrative cases involving compensation. The SAC has jurisdiction over the complaint for determination of just compensation, despite the absence of summary administrative proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board-DARAB (G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014)

Res Judicata

Two (2) concepts of res judicata: Bar by prior judgment & Conclusiveness of judgment. For res judicata to apply: 1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final, 2) the decision must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter & the parties, 3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits, 4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

Should identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, ONLY IDENTITY OF PARTIES can be shown, but not causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment applies (G.R. No. 209535, June 15, 2015).

Bar Matter No. 850

Supreme Court, En Banc Resolution.

Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The COURT RESOLVED to REQUIRE all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to file a written entry of appearance indicating their MCLE exemption or compliance number for the current or immediately preceding compliance period and date of issuance thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument in open court or before a Quasi-Judicial body. However, counsels who affixed their signatures in their pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or compliance number in their pleadings need not file a separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all counsels, including partners of law firms whose names appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE exemption or compliance number.

Notices of Coverage & Acquisition after the 10 year of CARP

Republic Act 8532 extended the term of the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Consequently, Notice of Coverage (NOC) and Notice of Acquisition (NOA) issued by the DAR after 15 June 1998 or beyond the 10-year of implementation provided for in Section 5 of RA6657, are valid.
(DAR, etc. vs Woodland Agro-Development, Inc., G.R. No. 188174, June 29, 2015)

Void Judgment

A void judgment, for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. It may be said to be "a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."