Recent Cases Penned by Justice Carpio-Morales
National v. Buenaventura, 14 Feb 2008
Remedial, Labor
Ostensibly, the complaint before the trial court was for the
recovery of possession and injunction, but in essence it
was an action challenging the legality or propriety of the
levy vis-à-vis the alias writ of execution, including the acts
performed by the Labor Arbiter and the Deputy Sheriff
implementing the writ. The complaint was in effect a
motion to quash the writ of execution of a decision
rendered on a case properly within the jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter, to wit: Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor
Practice. Where the subject matter of a claim is but an
incident of the labor case, the regional trial courts have no
jurisdiction.
PAL v. Ligan, 29 Feb 2008
Labor
Differences between legitimate contracting and labor-only
contracting [check the codal: Department Order No. 18-02,
Series of 2002 of the IRR and Articles 106 to 109 of the
Labor Code, as amended]. Requirements of labor-only
contracting: (1) no substantial capital or investment which
relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the
employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor
or subcontractor are performing activities which are
directly related to the main business of the principal, or (2)
no right to control. Contractual provisions are not valid
determinants of the existence of the parties' relationship; it
is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of
the case which is controlling.
Respondents are declared to be regular employees of
petitioner, Synergy being a mere agent of the latter; thus,
they had acquired security of tenure. As such, they could
only be dismissed by the real employer, not its agent, on
the basis of just or authorized cause, and with observance
of procedural due process.
Rosales v. Monesit, Sr., 10 Apr 2008
Ethics
The Court may proceed with an administrative case despite
the desistance of the complainant. That respondent settled
his obligation with complainant during the pendency of the
complaint does not exculpate him from administrative
liability. Willful failure to pay just debt amounts to
conduct unbecoming a court employee.
Saberon v. Larong, 16 Apr 2008
Ethics
Lawyers should abstain from all offensive personality and
not advance any fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation
of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in
his pleadings, including those filed before government
agencies other than the courts such as the Bangko Sentral,
must be dignified.
Flores v. Lofranco, 30 Apr 2008
Remedial
The only evidence to prove the charge of immorality was
an affidavit. The affiant was not presented to affirm it and
in fact recanted his statements. RULING: Affidavits are
generally not prepared by the affiant but by another who
uses his own language in writing the affidavit, and who
may either omit or misunderstand the affiant’s statements.
Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity
to cross-examine the affiant. Therefore, affidavits are
inadmissible hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are
placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
Judge v. Literato, 18 Jun 2008
Remedial, Civil, Ethics
Actions where the issues relate to property and property
rights survive the death of a party.
The purpose behind the rule on substitution in case of
death is the protection of the right to due process of every
party to the litigation who may be affected by the
intervening death. The deceased litigant is herself or
himself protected as s/he continues to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative of his estate.
The duty of counsel is to inform the court within 30 days
after the death of his client of such fact, and to give the
name and address of the deceased's legal representative/s.
This is the only representation that counsel can undertake
after the death of a client as the death terminates any
further lawyer-client relationship. Late reporting may be
satisfactorily explained but the address to be given must be
that of "legal representatives," or those authorized by the
law of wills and succession to take over the estate of the
deceased—the administrator, executor, or guardian, or the
heirs themselves.
Fil-Estate v. Homena, 25 Jun 2008
Remedia, Civill
The Neypes rule may be retroactively applied as there are
no vested rights in procedural rules.
Re: Letter Against Devanadera, 30 Jun 2008
Ethics
The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not
only limited to the administration of discipline to those
found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of
the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged.
The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to
mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who
are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties;
but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to
those the accusation against whom is not indubitably
proven. For a lawyer’s good name is, in the ultimate
analysis, his most important possession.
Republic v. Baguio, 30 Jun 2008
Civil
Wife discovered that Husband is an intolerable mama’s
boy who cohabited with his mother more than he did with
his wife. RULING: Article 36 of the Family Code must be
read together with the Articles on legal separation and on
defective marriages. These various circumstances are not
to be applied indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent
on the matter. Psychological incapacity is distinct from a
divorce law which cuts the marital tie at the time the
causes therefor manifest themselves. The mere showing of
"irreconcilable differences," "conflicting personalities,"
and failure of the parties to meet their marital
responsibilities and duties does not constitute
psychological incapacity. Article 36 thinks of the
incapacity, not refusal, to establish a common life.
Judge v. Pablico, 30 Jun 2008
Ethics
Neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give one's
attention to a task expected of him. Gross neglect is such
neglect which, from the gravity of the case or the
frequency of instances (i.e. habituality of infractions),
becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or
threaten the public welfare.
Mane v. Judge, 30 Jun 2008
Ethics
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of
knowledge of the law. A lawyer is presumed to be
competent to discharge his functions and duties as an
officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his
law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or
competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma
mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad
hominem; a judge must address the merits of the case and
not on the person of the counsel.
Santos v. Shing, 29 Sept 2008
Labor
Two definitions of “confidential employee”—(1) as to who
may join unions of the rank-and-file employees
(confidential employees are those in any way involved in
matters of labor-management relations) and (2) as to loss
of confidence as a just cause for dismissal (CEs occupy
positions of trust and confidence with respect to the care
and custody of the employer’s money or property).
McDonald’s v. Alba, 30 Sept 2008
Remedial, Labor
The NLRC Rules allow the Labor Arbiter to motu proprio
determine whether there is a need for a hearing or
clarificatory conference. The Arbiter prudently saw it best
to dispense with a hearing since the position papers and
responsive pleadings, together with the attached
documentary evidence, provided more than sufficient
bases to resolve the case.
Payroll sheets are inconclusive to disprove respondent’s
eight-hour-per-day work shift. Time cards would have
been more reliable. But petitioners did not present them.
When a party has in its power to produce evidence that
would overthrow the case made against it but fails to do
so, the presumption arises that such evidence, if produced,
would operate to its prejudice and support the case of the
other party.
Willful disobedience to the employer's lawful orders
requires that (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness being
characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude" and (2)
the order was reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee and must pertain to the duties which one has
been engaged to discharge.
Serious misconduct requires that the act or the conduct
complained of must have violated some established rules
or policies and have been performed with wrongful intent.
Previous offenses may be used as valid justification for
dismissal from work only if they are related to the
subsequent infraction-basis of the termination of
employment.
Quisumbing v. Sandiganbayan, 14 Nov 2008
Remedial, Political
The Republic has standing in this suit over sequestered
assets and properties alleged to have been illegally
acquired with the use of public funds or resources or by
taking advantage of public office. In filing the action for
their reconveyance, the Republic, through the PCGG, is
protecting its interests in such sequestered assets and
properties. Their deterioration and disappearance cannot
be allowed, unless there is a final adjudication and
disposition of the issue of whether they are ill-gotten or
not, since they may result in damage or prejudice to the
Republic.
Dao v. Laigo, 20 Nov 2008
Civil
There is no showing that after the appraisal of the
properties, per an agreement between the parties
subsequent to a contract of loan, the creditor approved the
debtor’s proposal to settle the obligation via dation.
Hence, the latter should settle the debt by paying in the
manner agreed upon in the contract.
Geraldo v. People, 20 Nov 2008
Remedial
Where the victim was not shown by the prosecution to be
competent, had he survived his stabbing, to testify as to the
identities of his assailant, his dying declaration is
inadmissible hearsay. Also, the identification of accused
as the assailants is not certain because they were not
shown to be the only “Badjing” and “Amado” in the
locality.
People v. Lagman, 8 Dec 2008
Remedial, Criminal
Essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of
regulated drugs: 1) the possession (actual and constructive)
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely or consciously possessed the said drug.
The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or
building owned or occupied by a particular person raises
the presumption of knowledge and possession.
A search warrant need not specify against whom it is
directed. Particularity refers to the palace to be searched
and the things to be seized.
Where the negative of an issue (such as lack of authority to
possess drugs) does not permit of direct proof, or where
the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of
the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. An
accused can easily disprove the negative averment by
presenting the license issued by the proper government
agency.
The Dangerous Drugs Act prohibits the possession of
illegal drugs regardless of the purity of the specimen found
in the possession of the accused.
Bautista-Borja v. Borja, 10 Dec 2008
Remedial, Civil
Where the action is one for declaration of the nullity of
Deeds of Sale (claimed to be either falsified and/or without
consideration), Article 1410 of the Civil Code applies, and
the action is imprescriptible.
Actions for reconveyance, based on alleged void contracts,
are also imprescriptible.
An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a
motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face
shows that indeed the action has already prescribed.
Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving
evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the
merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to
dismiss.
Bondad v. People, 10 Dec 2008
Criminal
Failure to comply with the requirements in Section 21 of
the Dangerous Drugs Act (custody and disposition of
drugs seized) is not fatal only if there were justifiable
reasons for such failure and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the items are not compromised. Where the items
were not even photographed on the scene and an inventory
was not made, the identity of the evidence was not ensured
and hence, the failure to comply with Section 21 is fatal.
First v. Valdez, 10 Dec 2008
Remedial, Political
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving his allegations with substantial
evidence. While technical rules of evidence shall not be
controlling [termed by J. C-M as “assurance of a desirable
flexibility in administrative proceedings”], does not go as
far as to justify orders without basis in evidence having
rational probative force.
Manila v. Rabina, 16 Dec 2008
Remedial, Political
A motion for extension of time to file a pleading, moreso a
second motion for extension, is not granted as a matter of
right.
Jurisdiction of HLURB: (a) unsound real estate business
practices such as mortgages unauthorized by the Board; (b)
claims for refund and any other claims filed by subdivision
lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and (c) cases
involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium unit against the owner, developer, broker or
salesman.
Labadan v. Forest, 23 Dec 2008
Labor
Conditions for the deduction of 10% tithe in Art. 113 of
the Labor Code (3) and Rule VIII, Section 10 of the Rules
Implementing Book III (2).
Ilusorio v. Bildner, 23 Dec 2008
Criminal
Venue for prosecutions for perjury is the municipality or
territory where the complaint, to which the affidavits
bearing the alleged untruthful allegations, was filed and
not where those affidavits where executed/notarized.
Williams v. Icao, 24 Dec 2008
Ethics
Administrative cases against erring lawyers are
imprescriptible.
Respondent notarized a document in violation of the old
Notarial Law because he did not indicate the residence
certificate number of one of the signatories. It also
contained false statements and was not personally signed
by the parties before him.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
It is invested with substantive public interest, since notarial
documents are by law entitled to full faith and credit, such
that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public, who must consequently observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.
Santiago III v. Enrique, Jr., 13 Feb 2009
Ethics
That cases cited to support a Decision are not applicable
and that the appreciation of evidence and facts is erroneous
do not necessarily warrant the filing of an administrative
complaint against a judge, unless the Decision is tainted
with fraud, malice or dishonesty or with deliberate intent
to cause injustice. The proper remedy is appeal or a
petition for certiorari.
The principle of "judicial immunity" insulates judges, even
Justices of superior courts, from being held to account
criminally, civilly, or administratively for an erroneous
decision rendered in good faith. To hold otherwise would
render judicial office untenable. No one called upon to try
the facts or interpret the law in the process of
administering justice is infallible in his judgment.
The filing of charges against a single member of a division
of a collegiate court is inappropriate. Decisions rendered
by such bodies are not done so by a member thereof in his
individual capacity.
Mago v. Judge, 19 Mar 2009
Ethics
Respondent delegated the examination of the complainant
in a grave threats case to the stenographer and allowed the
witnesses to "read/study the [written] question[s]" to be
propounded to them and to "write their answers [thereto],"
saying that it was for the convenience of the stenographers,
respondent betrayed her lack of knowledge of procedure,
thereby contributing to the erosion of public confidence in
the judicial system. She is thus guilty of gross ignorance
of the law or procedure which, under Section 8, Rule 140
of the Rules of Court, is a serious charge.
Ong v. Dinopol, 30 Mar 2009
Remedial, Ethics
In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the
onus of proving, generally by substantial evidence, the
allegations in the complaint. Such burden must overcome
the presumption of regularity in the performance of a
judge’s functions. The presumption necessarily springs
from a judge’s solemn oath of office to administer justice
according to the law and evidence, without respect to any
person and without fear or favor.
Any perceived error in the exercise of discretion cannot be
reviewed and corrected through an administrative case but
via judicial recourse, such as an appeal or a petition for
certiorari.
People v. Domingo, 7 Apr 2009
Criminal
A person may be charged and convicted of both illegal
recruitment and estafa. Illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. Accused, who did
not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy,
misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had
the capacity to send them abroad for employment. This
misrepresentation, which induced the complaining
witnesses to part off with their money for placement and
medical fees, constitutes estafa.

People v. Aleta, 16 Apr 2009

Criminal

The moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful

aggression on his part ceases to exist; and when unlawful
aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to
kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation
and not self-defense is committed.

Torredillas v. Judge, 29 Apr 2009

Ethics
At the time of a judicial audit, respondent was shown to
have slept on at least 51 cases. Before promulgation of
this case, he was assassinated. RULING: Inability to
decide cases and delay in resolving motions and pending
incidents within the required periods are inexcusable and
constitute gross inefficiency. Judges also cannot take
refuge in the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court
personnel since court personnel are not the guardians of
judges’ responsibilities. The penalty of dismissal cannot
be imposed because of his death. He could, however, still
be fined.