Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
LEON
8.
NO.
JUSTICE DE
LEON
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Facts:
1.
Issue:
W/N the CA erred in dismissing SMCs appeal on the
ground of pure technicalities.
Held:
NO.
1. Justice Malcolm: the word "brief" is derived from the Latin
brevis, and the French briefe, and literally means a short or
condensed statement. The purpose of the brief, as all law
students and lawyers know, is to present to the court in
concise form the points and questions in controversy, and
by fair argument on the facts and law of the case to assist
the court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. The
brief should be so prepared as to minimize the labor of the
court in the examination of the record upon which the
appeal is heard and determined.
2. First requirement is a SUBJECT INDEX.
JUSTICE DE
LEON
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Issue:
W/N petitioner is liable to respondent for damages
and W/N the damages awarded by respondent Court of Appeals are
proper.
Held:
YES to both.
1. Section 8, Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides: no error which does not affect the jurisdiction over
the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed
from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless
stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or
dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the
brief, save as the court pass upon plain errors and clerical
errors.
2. Sec. 8, which is an amendment of the former Sec. 7 of this
Rule, now includes some substantial changes in the rules on
assignment of errors.
a. GR: The basic procedural rule is that only errors
claimed and assigned by a party will be considered
by the court.
b. EXCEPTIONS: Errors affecting its jurisdiction over the
subject matter. To this exception has now been
added errors affecting the validity of the judgment
appealed from or the proceedings therein.
3. Also, even if the error complained of by a party is not
expressly stated in his assignment of errors but the same is
closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and
properly argued in his brief, such error may now be
considered by the court. These changes are of
jurisprudential origin.
4. The procedure in the Supreme Court being generally the
same as that in the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise
indicated (see Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 56), it has been held that
the latter is clothed with ample authority to review matters,
even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds
that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
JUSTICE DE
LEON
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Phase III of the project, the 10% retention for Phase I, II and III of
the project, and the contract price for Phase IV of the project;
2. Ordering the defendant to indemnify plaintiff the sum equal to
2% of P9,082,068 up to Mar 30, 1995, as actual and for damages;
3. Ordering the defendant to indemnify plaintiff the sum equal to 1
and % of P9,082,068.00 monthly from Mar 30, 1995 up to the
time the full amount is fully paid, as and by way of actual
damages;
4. The sum of P1M as and for attorney's fee; plus the costs of the
suit.
The counterclaim interposed by the defendant is hereby dismissed
for lack of evidence to sustain it. SO ORDERED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 28 Jan 1992, Appellant Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA)
entered into a contract with Appellee Corona International
Incorporated (Corona) for the supply and delivery/installation of
complete communication facility/system with related office
automation hardware. Mr. Charles Avila, then Administrator of PCA
signed the contract in his capacity as such while Edgardo Silverio
signed in his capacity as President and General Manager of Corona.
On 11 Feb. 1992, Corona was paid the agreed mobilization fund in
the total amount of P6,727,457.47. Pursuant to the Contract,
Corona then had 120 calendar days from receipt of the Mobilization
Fund or until June 11, 1992 within which to complete the works,
thus:
"The covered equipment/facilities shall be delivered and
installed by the Contractor in the places/regions a specified
in the Bid Documents within 120 calendar days from the
date of receipt of the Mobilization Fund mentioned in the
succeeding paragraph hereof, which shall include
commissioning of the equipment/network xxx"
On 04 March 1992, Mr. Avila, in a Special Order created an
Inspection and Acceptance Committee responsible for the
inspection, acceptance and proper documentation of all the units
installed and ensure its conformity with the technical specifications
as provided for in the contract. The Committee was headed by Mr.
Paulino Raguindin. On 30 April 1992, Mr. Raguindin issued a
certification (Exhibit "28") that items delivered for Phase I under
the mentioned Contract has been completed by corona and duly
accepted by the Inspection and Acceptance Committee. On 06 May
1992, another certification (Exhibit "29") was issued by Mr.
Raguindin. This represented payment for Phase I of the project. On
08 May 1992, another certification of similar tenor was again
issued by Mr. Raguindin for which reason Corona was paid
P6,054,711.70 (P6,727,457.44 less 10% retention) representing
JUSTICE DE
LEON
ALFONSO YUCHENGCO v. CA
(October 27, 2006)
Facts:
1.
3.
Issues:
1. WON the appeal should be dismissed because Yuchengco
was not served 2 copies of respondents Coyiuto, et al.s
brief as required by Sec. 7 of Rule 44.
2. WON the appeal should be dismissed because the
appellants briefs were not in the prescribed size and did not
have page references as required by Sec 13 (c) and (d) of
Rule 44.
Held:
1. No. Sec 7 of Rule 44 requires the appellants to serve 2
copies of the appellants brief to the appellee.
a. However, the failure to serve the required number of
copies does not automatically result in the dismissal of
the appeal. The CA has the discretion whether to dismiss
or not to dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to Sec 1 of Rule
50, an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of
Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee
upon the ground, among others, of failure of the
appellant . . . to serve and file the required number of
copies of his brief, within the reglementary period.
Manifestly, this provision confers a power and does not
impose a duty. It is directory, not mandatory.
2. No, respondents substantially complied with the rules. Sec
13 (c) & (d) of Rule 44 requires that the appellants brief
should contain a clear statement of the case and facts with
page references to the record.
b. The absence of page reference is a ground for dismissal
of the appeal, however, the same is not mandatory but
directory on the part of the CA. Where the citations
found in the appellants brief could sufficiently enable
the appellate court to locate expeditiously the portions
of the record referred to, there is substantial compliance
with the requirements of Sec 13 (c) & (d), Rule 46 of the
ROC. Such determination was properly within the
appellate courts discretion.
JUSTICE DE
LEON
JUSTICE DE
LEON
No.
10
Doctrine:
The granting of an extension, including the duration thereof,
lies within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised in
accordance with the attendant circumstances of each case. The
court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except a
case from their operation when compelling circumstances so
warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. However, the
movant is not justified in assuming that the extension sought will
be granted, or that it will be granted for the length of time sought.
Thus, it is the duty of the movant for extension to exercise due
diligence and inform himself as soon as possible of the appellate
courts action on his motion.
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Facts:
Present case is a petition for review on certiorari
Petitioners Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
Private respondents Environmental Aquatics Inc. and Land
and its corp. sister Land & Services Management Enterprises
Inc.; and Mario Matute, the assignee of the right of
redemption
1. The sister corporations executed a mortgage in favor of DBP
over 2 fishing boats and a parcel of land in New Mania to
secure their loan (P1,792,600.00) with DBP; the mortgage
annotated on the TCT of land
2. The loan was restructured thru a liquidation loan of
P2,163,800.00;
and
subsequently,
P1,973,100.00,
P190,700.00, and P684,788.00
3. Unable to pay, the mortgaged lot was foreclosed and sold by
the RTC- QC ex-officio Sheriff to DBP as the highest bidder;
the certificate of sale issued on December 19, 1990
contained a 1-year period from the date of registration for
redemption
4. On July 27, 1991, Matute, thru counsel Atty. Vitug, wrote
DBP a letter expressing his desire to redeem the lot by a
Mangers check upon receipt of the accurate figures in
writing of the principal obligation with interests from
December 19, 1990 to August 19, 1991
5. In reply, DBP, thru its Bacolod branch, on August 16, 1991,
rejected a piecemeal redemption and rather asked that
the total amount owed as per August 31 Statement be paid
if redemption be allowed
6. The parties are in contention of the amount payable:
a. DBP relies on EO 81 which it contends to burden Matute
in the amount of P18,301,653.11, the amount of loan
outstanding at the date of foreclosure
b. Matute relies on Sec.5 of Act 3135 and Sec.26 to 30 of
Rule 39, ROC which it contends burdens him to pay only
P1,507,000.00, the amount paid by DBP at foreclosure
7. Respondents filed a complaint for redemption with the RTC
which was granted and ruled that DBP may claim deficiency
from the sister corporations; MR by DBP was denied thus it
filed a Notice of Appeal
8. On July 6, 1998, DBP received a notice to file appellants
brief
11
JUSTICE DE
LEON
12
JUSTICE DE
LEON
6. f.
Petitioners then filed for certiorari with the CA but
dismissed the same for failure to comply with procedural
requirements, one of which is the verification and
certification being executed not by petitioners themselves
but by their counsel
Issue:
Whether CA erred in finding that there was failure to
comply with the requirements of the Rules.
Facts:
The present petition is for certiorari
a. RTC convicted Tobias and petitioner herein, Sajot, for estafa
b. Tobias appealed the case with CA and filed appellants brief
therefor which case is now pending
c. As for Sajot, he was required by CA to file appellants brief
within 30days from receipt of notice although he was
granted three (3) extensions to file the same
d. CA eventually dismissed the appeal for failure to file brief
despite extensions granted; CA denied MR for being a
prohibited pleading
Held:
NO.
The CA Resolution dismissing outright the
appeal is affirmed.
1. It is clear from the above-quoted provision that the
certification must be made by petitioner himself and not by
counsel since it is petitioner who is in the best position to
know whether he has previously commenced any similar
action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or
agency
2. An exception to the rule [as stated in item (1)] was held in
BA Savings Bank v. Sia in that a certification may be signed
by an authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the
facts required to be disclosed in such document
3. However, BA Savings Bank must be distinguished from the
case at bar since the complainant therein was a corporation,
and hence, a juridical person and can only act through
natural persons; therefore, physical actions may be
performed on behalf of the corporate entity only by
specifically authorized individual
4. In the present case, petitioners are all natural persons and
there is no showing of any reasonable cause to justify their
failure to personally sign the certification; hence, the
argument of the petitioners that they executed a Special
Power of Attorney specifically to authorize their counsel to
execute the certification on their behalf is of no
consequence because no justifiable reason exists for them
to be substituted
5. Another procedural flaw: failure to indicate the material
dates that would show the timeliness of the filing of appeal
with the CA
6. On substantial issue: the SC affirmed the finding of CA
dispensing with the 1 month period
13
Sajot v. CA (3/11/1999)
Pardo, J.
Issue:
Whether CA gravely abused
dismissing the appeal for failure to file brief?
its
discretion
in
Held:
NO. The petition for certiorari to annul is dismissed.
1. Petitioner was himself guilty of neglect; was aware of his
conviction and of the requirement of filing an appellant's
brief. His excuse that he relied on the services of his counsel
and that he was busy is flimsy. Equally busy people have
in one way or the other learned how to cope with the same
problem he had. Were we to accept his excuse, this Court
would have to open cases dismissed many years ago on the
ground of counsel's neglect. In many cases, the fact is that
counsel's negligence is matched by his client's own
negligence.
2. We note that even during the trial of the estafa in the RTC,
petitioner never appeared in court except during the
arraignment. Thus, the court issued a warrant for his arrest
and interpreted his non-appearance as flight. Petitioner's
lack of vigilance as found by the trial court in its decision is
emphasized when his counsel in the present petition filed a
motion to withdraw primarily on the ground of irreconcilable
professional relationship between Atty. Florentino Temporal
and petitioner. Despite petitioner's repeated assurances
JUSTICE DE
LEON
14
JUSTICE DE
LEON
15
JUSTICE DE
LEON
16
Held: YES.
In the case at bar, we find that a judgment was made by the
metropolitan trial court in compliance with the rule on summary
procedure. The decision consisted of three typewritten pages,
JUSTICE DE
LEON
single space, and stated clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it was based. It was a concise and well-written decision,
and a correct one to boot, for which Judge Paciano B. Balita is to be
commended.
17
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Issues:
1. Whether it was proper for the Court of Appeals to take
cognizance of the Petition for Certiorari.
2. Whether the CA Resolution granting the preliminary
mandatory injunction was sufficient in form.
Held:
18
JUSTICE DE
LEON
19
JUSTICE DE
LEON
20
JUSTICE DE
LEON
21
JUSTICE DE
LEON
22
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Facts:
Mr Borromeo is not a lawyer but has apparently read some law
books and ostensibly came to possess some superficial
awareness of a few substantive legal principles and procedural
rules. For some 16 years not (since 1978), he has been
instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts.
1 Elements: (1)
23
He
JUSTICE DE
LEON
24
Rule 52
No motion for extension of time to file motion for
reconsideration
Sec. of Agrarian Reform vs. Tropical Homes
GR 136827 & 136799, July 31, 2001
Facts:
Carlos Iigo is the former registered owner of parcels of land
covered by four CTCs located in Bago Inigo, Toril, Davao City.
In 1971, Inigo and Tropical Homes entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement (JVA) for the development of the property into a
residential area, later known as Better Living Subdivision
o Tropical applied for the reclassification of the area from
agricultural to residential. This was granted.
When Inigo died, the heirs pursued the JVA with Tropical.
In 1990, DAR-Davao notified Tropical that the property would be
covered by the CARP.
In 1991, DAR issued 3 notices of acquisition to Tropical that a
portion of the land would be the subject of compulsory
acquisition.
This landholding is in present controversy.
o DAR distributed landholding to the identified farmerbeneficiaries.
[PARAD] Tropical filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the cancellation of the CLOA
JUSTICE DE
LEON
ISSUE:
WON the petitions may be given due course --- NO.
1st, because the MR was not filed on time. 2nd, DARAB rules
discourage motion for intervention.
RATIO
The procedural infirmities are replete and fatal to both causes of
action. Filed beyond the reglementary period to appeal.
o Petitioners claim that they received the CA Decision dated
Aug 5, 1998 on Aug 19. Thus, counting 15d, their MR should
have been filed on Sept 3. However, what they filed instead
25
Rule 53
Motion for new trial may be filed after motion for
reconsideration, but within 15 days
Tiongco vs. Deguma
GR 133619, Oct 26, 1999
Facts:
Jose Tiongco filed with RTC-Iloilo a complaint for damages
arising from fraudulent conspiracy, public scandal, with
preliminary injuction against Atty. Marciana Q. Deguma, Atty.
Napoleon Pagtanac, IMDC Major Carmelo Tiongco, Jr. and
JUSTICE DE
LEON
ISSUE:
RATIO:
Tiongco is aware that his complaint would not hold water. First,
he claimed that Tiongco Jr. and Deguma unlawfully
confederated, conspired and schemed to induce Yared to
execute and sign deeds of transfer and documents. Second, he
clains that TIongco Jr and Deguma have been fornicating inside
the 2-storey house thereby transforming the property into a
house of sin and creating public scandal. Pagtanac, A pao
lawyer, was impleaded for having tolerated and condoned the
alleged immorality.
o The entire record of the case is bereft of evidence to support
the allegations as to the existence of the above mentioned
deeds of transfer and documents, much less their execution.
o Thus, the CA affirmed the TCs award of moral and
exemplary damages in favour of all respondents. It deleted,
however, the actual damages for lack of evidentiary support
and disallowed the grant of attorneys fees for want of
ratiocination.
Tiongco filed an MR for the CAs judgment contending that it
was unjust and contrary to law and jurisprudence.
26
(Affirmed by
RATIO:
Generally, denuncia falsa or malicious prosecution refers to
unfounded criminal actions. The term had already been
expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted to vex and
humiliate defendants despite the absence of a cause of action
or probable cause.
o Malicious prosecution = an action for damages brought by
one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other
legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without
probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution,
suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
o Moral damages can be recovered based on malicious
prosecution (Art. 2219 of the Civil Code)
o Art 21 of the Civil Code is an additional legal justification for
the award of moral damages. Denouncing persons for
allegedly engaging in illicit sexual affairs and illegitimate
activities which undermined their good name and honor is
contrary to morals and good customs. Here, there is moral
injury caused to defendants.
While we commiserate with the mental and emotional
tribulations suffered by Deguma and Pagtanac because of the
unfonded accusations, we find that the amounts granted are
still excessive.
JUSTICE DE
LEON
27
JUSTICE DE
LEON
Sec. 3, Rule 46 - Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. - x x x.It shall be filed in seven (7)
clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the
respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated
as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such
material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other
documents relevant or pertinent thereto. xxx.
28
JUSTICE DE
LEON
29
JUSTICE DE
LEON
30