26.

pasos vs pncc

FACTS:

Based on the PNCC’s “Personnel Action Form Appointment for Project Employment”, petitioner was designated as “Clerk II (Acc
ounting)” and was assigned to the “NAIA – II Project.” However, his employment did not end on the expiration but was extended
until for more than two years. He was rehired, his employment was extended, rehired, and finally, his project employment was ter
minated. However, his superior required him still to report. Upon the medical examination, he was required by the doctor to take
sick leave which he did. Upon his return after 74 days, he was informed that he was already dismissed.

Issue:

1) Should an appeal be dismissed outright if the appeal bond filed is less than the adjudged amount? (2) Can the head of
the personnel department sign the verification and certification on behalf of the corporation sans any board resolution
or secretary’s certificate authorizing such officer to do the same?

Held:

The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and
noncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment final and executory. As provided in
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, in case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may
be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

However, not only in one case has this Court relaxed this requirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate
resolution of cases on the merits. this Court allowed the relaxation of the requirement when there is substantial compliance with
the rule. Likewise, in Ong v. Court of Appeals,26 the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there
is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial
bond. The Court held that "while the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases,
this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited
willingness to pay by posting a partial bond."

In sum, we have held that the following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification without
need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General
Manager or Acting General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.

While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of authorized signatories to the verification and certification required by
the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of the authority was done on a case to case basis. The rationale applied in the
foregoing cases is to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign the verification or
certificate against forum shopping, being "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition."

28-29. Heirs of Numeriano Miranda Sr. vs. Pablo Miranda

G.R. No. 179638, July 8, 2013
Doctrine: An action for revival of a judgment cannot modify, alter, or reverse the original judgment, which is already final and
executory.

Facts:
 In 1994, heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr., filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, a Complaint for
Annulment of Titles and Specific Performance against the heirs of Pedro Miranda, namely: Pacita and Oscar Miranda; the
heir of Tranquilino Miranda, Rogelio Miranda; and the spouses respondent Pablo Miranda and Aida Lorenzo.
 After trial, the RTC, Branch 256, rendered against petitioners
 Petitioners did not file any appeal hence the Decision became final and executory.
 On December 11, 2001, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution,9 which was not implemented.
 On July 8, 2005, respondent filed an Ex-parte Motion praying that the RTC issue a "Break-Open and Demolition Order" in
order to compel the petitioners to vacate his property. But since more than five years have elapsed from the time the Writ of
Execution should have been enforced, the RTC denied the Motion in its Order 13 dated August 16, 2005.
 This prompted respondent to file with the RTC a Petition for Revival of Judgment. Petitioners opposed the revival of judgment
assailing, among others, the jurisdiction of the RTC to take cognizance of the Petition for Revival of Judgment.

Issue: WON the notice of appeal was belatedly filed. (YES.)

Held:
 Petitioners assert that an action to revive judgment is appealable and that their appeal was perfected on time. They insist that
the Notice of Appeal, which they filed on the 15th day via LBC, was seasonably filed since the law does not require a specific
mode of service for filing a notice of appeal. Besides, even if their appeal was belatedly filed, it should still be given due course
in the interest of justice considering that their counsel had to brave the storm and the floods caused by typhoon "Florita" just
to file their Notice of Appeal on time. Petitioners further contend that their appeal is meritorious
 The Petition lacks merit. The Notice of Appeal was belatedly filed. It is basic and elementary that a Notice of Appeal should
be filed "within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from." Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court, pleadings may be filed in court either personally or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the
date of receipt. In the second case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt.
 In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed the Notice of Appeal via a private courier, a mode of filing not provided
in the Rules. Though not prohibited by the Rules, we cannot consider the filing of petitioners’ Notice of Appeal via LBC timely
filed. It is established jurisprudence that "the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be
considered as the date of filing thereof in court;" instead, "the date of actual receipt by the court x x x is deemed the date of
filing of that pleading."42 Records show that the Notice of Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was received by the court
on the 16th day or one day beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed
out of time.
Neither can petitioners use typhoon "Florita" as an excuse for the belated filing of the Notice of Appeal because work in
government offices in Metro Manila was not suspended on July 13, 2006, the day petitioners’ Notice of Appeal was mailed via
LBC. And even if we, in the interest of justice, give due course to the appeal despite its late filing, the result

 would still be the same. The appeal would still be denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 30, 1999 is already final
and executory.
 An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action. 44 It is different and distinct from the original judgment
sought to be revived or enforced.45 As such, a party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment
may appeal the decision, but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The original judgment, which is
already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered, or modified. 46
 In this case, petitioners assail the Decision dated August 30, 1999, which is the original judgment sought to be revived or
enforced by respondent.1âwphi1 Considering that the said Decision had already attained finality, petitioners may no longer
question its correctness. As we have said, only the merits of the action for revival may be appealed, not the merits of the
original judgment sought to be revived or enforced.
As to whether the RTC has jurisdiction, we rule in the affirmative. An action for revival of judgment may be filed either "in the
same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place
designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general."47 In this case, respondent filed the Petition for Revival
of Judgment in the same court which rendered the Decision dated August 30, 1999

30. EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, GR No. 204700,
2013-04-10
Facts:
Petitioners Eagleridge Development Corporation (EDC), and sureties Marcelo N. Naval (Naval) and Crispin I. Oben (Oben) are
the defendants in a collection suit initiated by Export and Industry Bank (EIB) through a Complaint[6] dated February 9, 2005,
and... currently pending proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Makati City[7].
By virtue of a Deed of Assignment[8] dated August 9, 2006, EIB transferred EDC's outstanding loan obligations... o respondent
Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (Cameron)
Thereafter, Cameron filed its Motion to Substitute/Join EIB... which was granted by the trial court.
petitioners filed a Motion for Production/Inspection[10] of the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA)... eferred to in the
Deed... referred to in the Deed of Assignment.
Respondent Cameron filed its Comment[11] dated March 14, 2012 alleging that petitioners have not shown "good cause" for the
production of the LSPA and that the same is allegedly irrelevant to the case a quo.
Petitioners explained that the production of the LSPA was for "good cause". They pointed out that the claim of Cameron is based
on an obligation purchased after litigation had already been... instituted in relation to it.
hat pursuant to Article 1634 of the New Civil Code[13] on assignment of credit, the obligation subject of the case a quo is a credit
in litigation, which may be extinguished by reimbursing the assignee of... the price paid therefor, the judicial costs incurred and
the interest of the price from the day on which the same was paid.
As petitioners' alleged loan obligations may be reimbursed up to the extent of the amount paid by Cameron in the acquisition
thereof, it becomes necessary to verify the amount of the consideration from the LSPA, considering that the Deed of Assignment
was silent on... this matter.
the trial court denied petitioners' motion for production for being utterly devoid of merit. It ruled that there was failure to show
"good cause" for the production of the LSPA and failure to show that the LSPA is... material or contains evidence relevant to an
issue involved in the action.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed on April 25, 2012, their Motion for Reconsideration.
The trial court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration... petitioners filed their Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals (CA), to nullify and/or set aside the RTC's Resolutions
Resolution dated August 29, 2012, the CA (Third Division) dismissed the petition... subsequent motion for reconsideration... was
likewise denied in the CA's
Issues:
whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the production and/or inspection of the LSPA.
Ruling:
Section 1, Rule 27 of the 1997 Rules of Court, states:
Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which
an action is pending may a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf
of the... moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things,
not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession,
custody or control;... xxx... he provision on production and inspection of documents is one of the modes of discovery sanctioned
by the Rules of Court in order to enable not only the parties, but also the court to discover all the relevant and material facts in
connection with the case pending before... it.
Generally, the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to provide the litigants with information essential to the fair
and amicable settlement or expeditious trial of the case.[23] All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table... so that
justice can be rendered on the merits of the case.[24]
Although the grant of a motion for production of document is admittedly discretionary on the part of the trial court judge,
nevertheless, it cannot be arbitrarily or unreasonably denied because to do so would bar access to relevant evidence that may
be used by a party-litigant... and hence, impair his fundamental right to due process.[25]
Th... he test to be applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy of documents and the sufficiency of their description is
one of reasonableness and practicability.[26]
As respondent Cameron's claim against the petitioners relies entirely on the validity of the Deed of Assignment, it is incumbent
upon respondent Cameron to allow petitioners to inspect all documents relevant to the Deed, especially those documents which,
by express terms,... were referred to and identified in the Deed itself. The LSPA, which pertains to the same subject matter the
transfer of the credit to respondent is manifestly useful to petitioners' defense.
he relevance of the LSPA sought by petitioners is readily apparent. Fair play demands that petitioners must be given the chance
to examine the LSPA. Besides, we find no great practical difficulty, and respondent did not allege any, in presenting the...
document for inspection and copying of the petitioners.
Principles:
All documents mentioned in a Deed of Assignment transferring the credit of the plaintiff in a pending litigation should be
accessible to the defendant through a Motion for Production or Inspection of Documents under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court.
Litigation... is not a game of skills and stratagems. It is a social process that should allow both parties to fully and fairly access
the truth of the matters in litigation.
31. THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM, COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. COURT OF APPEALS and GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM
G.R. No. 174788; April 11, 2013

FACTS:
Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) filed a Petition for Prohibition with the CA dated 18 July 2005 against
petitioner Special Audit Team (SAT) of the Commission on Audit (COA) with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order (TRO), a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, and a writ of prohibition. Subsequently, GSIS also submitted a Manifestation
and Motion dated 21 July 2005 detailing the urgency of restraining the SAT. The CA issued a Resolution on 22 July 2005, directing
petitioner SAT to submit the latter’s comment, to be treated as an answer. Additionally, the CA granted the prayer of GSIS for the
issuance of a TRO effective sixty (60) days from notice.
After requiring the submission of memoranda, CA issued the assailed Resolution dated 23 September 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No.
90484, granting the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the posting of an injunction bond. The Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) and a Comment on the petition dated 10 October 2005, after
it was notified of the case, as the SAT had been represented in the interim by one of the team members instead of the OSG. The
MR was denied through a Resolution of the CA on 9 August 2006.
The present Petition seeks to nullify both the 23 September 2005 and the 9 August 2006 CA Resolutions and to prohibit the CA
from proceeding to decide the case.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not prohibition is the correct remedy
2. Whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction was properly issued

HELD:
1. PROHIBITION IS NOT THE CORRECT REMEDY. There is an appeal or a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. A
rule of thumb for every petition brought under Rule 65 is the unavailability of an appeal or any "plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy.” Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are extraordinary remedies that historically require extraordinary facts to be
shown in order to correct errors of jurisdiction. The law also dictates the necessary steps before an extraordinary remedy may
be issued. To be sure, the availability of other remedies does not always lend itself to the impropriety of a Rule 65 petition. If,
for instance, the remedy is insufficient or would be proven useless, then the petition will be given due course. The failure to
fulfill the requirements of Rule 65 disallows the CA from taking due course of the Petition; otherwise appeals and motions for
reconsideration would be rendered meaningless.
2. Writs of injunction do not perfunctorily issue from the courts. For the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to be proper,
it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant
is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the
 absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In this case, respondents
failed to show that they have a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of
the said right.

32. ALCANTARA V COMELEC

G.R. No. 203646 APRIL 16, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioners are members of ABAKADA Guro Partylist. In May 2007 election ABAKADA participated and won a seat,
Jonathan dela Cruz , its first nominee become the party’s sole representative in the Congress.

Petitioners filed a petition with the COMELEC when the respondents proceeded to hold a Supreme Assembly that
resulted to the approval and ratification of the revised ABAKADA CBL and the ouster and expulsion of petitioners from their
positions and to the party.

Petitioners in their petition alleged that the meeting held was void for the holding of the said Supreme Assembly(SA)
were contrary to the CBL for not having been authorized by the president and the party’s National Executive Board. And Alcantara
has no authority to send communication since he is not the secretary.

Respondent defended the validity of the meeting contending that Dela Cruz made several communications to Alcantara
to urge him to call for SA.

COMELEC dismissed the petition and ruled that the respondents had good cause to initiate the holding of the meeting.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the ruling, questioning the Division’s failure to address the issue of validity of SA based
on the non-membership status of the several meetings participants. COMELEC En Banc denied the motion. Hence, an appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme Assembly is void for it not convened in accordance with party`s CBL.

HELD:

The Supreme Assembly is valid. As the COMELEC correctly observed, ABAKADA`s constitution expressly requires the
convening of SA once every three years for the purposes of electing the members of National Executive Board-the governing body
of ABAKADA-headed by petitioner Alcantara. In contravention of the ABAKADA`s own constitution, no SA was ever held since the
ABAKADA came into existence in 2003, prompting the respondents to communicate with the petitioner to call for and assemble
the leaders. This call, was in fact a practical approach to a coming political exercise.

The petition is dismissed for failure of the petitioner to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC, this
Court can do no less than to dismiss the petition and allow the ABAKADA as sectoral party to determine its own affairs under its
present leadership.