Doctrinal Case Digests

Mark Anthony B. Rivas JD 4-1

1. Bar Course: Labor Relations; Illegal Dismissal

Question: Is Carbonilla Jr.’s dismissal valid?
Answer: Yes. The dismissal is valid.
The employment was validly terminated on the grounds of, among others, serious misconduct and loss of
trust and confidence. For misconduct to be considered as a just cause for termination, the following
requisites must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and
(c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. Records show misconduct consisted of him frequently
exhibiting disrespectful and belligerent behavior, not only to his colleagues, but also to his superiors. He
even used his stature as a law graduate to insist that he is "above" them, often using misguided legalese to
weasel his way out of the charges against him, as well as to strong-arm his colleagues and superiors into
succumbing to his arrogance.
On the second ground, loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal when it is shown
that: (a) the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence; and ( b) he performs an act that
would justify such loss of trust and confidence. Records reveal that Carbonilla, Jr. occupied a position of
trust and confidence as he was employed as Credit and Collection Manager, and later on, as Legal and
Collection Manager, tasked with the duties of, among others, handling the credit and collection activities
of the cooperative, which included recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit
and collection policies, and conducting trainings Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee
has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample
reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him (Cebu
People's Multi-purpose Cooperative and Macario G. Quevedo Vs. Nicerato E. Carbonilla, Jr.;G.R. No.
212070. January 27, 2016)

2. Bar Course: Civil Law; Just Compensation

Questions: Is submission of complete documents a pre-condition or the release of initial valuation to a
landowner?
Answer: No. Submission of the complete documents is a not pre-condition for the release of the initial
valuation to a landowner. To hold otherwise would effectively protract payment of the amount which RA
6657 guarantees to be immediately due the landowner even pending the determination of just
compensation.
Question: What is the reckoning period for the payment of 12% interest?
Answer: Interest is imposed if there is delay in the payment of just compensation to the landowner since
the obligation is deemed to be an effective forbearance on the part of the State. Such interest shall be
pegged at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the unpaid balance of the just compensation,
reckoned from the time of taking, or the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of
his property1 such as when title is transferred to the Republic,1 or emancipation patents are issued by the
government, until full payment. (Land Bank of the Philippines Vs. Edgardo L Santos/Edgardo L. Santos
Vs. Land Bank of the Philippines;G.R. No. 213863/G.R. No. 214021. January 27, 2016)

3. Bar Course: Remedial Law; Lis Pendens and Doctrine of Exhaustion of Admin Remedies
Question: What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies?
Answer: Jurisprudence instructs that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is
a pre-condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy
within the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted
first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal
to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed
for lack of cause of action.
Question: Under what instances the notice of lis pendens may be cancelled?
Answer: Under Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled "after
proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary
to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded." In the same vein, case law likewise
instructs that a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled in situations where: (a) there are exceptional
circumstances imputable to the party who caused the annotation; (b) the litigation was unduly prolonged
to the prejudice of the other party because of several continuances procured by petitioner; (c) the case
which is the basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for non-prosequitur on the part of the
plaintiff; or (d) judgment was rendered against the party who caused such a notatiom. In the case, Since
the Tenancy Case had already been decided against Sps. Gonzales with finality, it is but proper that the
PARAD order the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens subject of this case.
(Spouses Ramon and Ligaya Gonzales Vs. Marmaine Realty Corporation ;G.R. No. 214241.
January 13, 2016)

4. Bar Course: Legal Ethics: Moonlighting

Questions: Will the Court Stenographer be held administratively liable since she still had not caused
the transfer of the title to complainant's name?
Answer: Yes. Administrative liability is undisputed in light of her admission that she agreed to cause the
transfer of the property covered by OCT No. T-11566 in complainant's name, which is not among her
duties as court stenographer. It remarked that respondent was engaged in "moonlighting", considering
the fact that processing of transfer of properties requires transacting with government offices, such as the
Registry of Deeds, only during office hours.
Moonlighting" is denominated as the light offense of "[t]he pursuit of a private business or vocation
without the permission required under Civil Service rules and regulations." It is punishable by reprimand
for the first offense, suspension from office for a period of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second
offense, and dismissal from service for the third offense

Finally, it emphasized that officials and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging directly
in any private business, vocation, or profession even outside office hours to ensure full-time service and
avoid undue delay in the administration of justice and in the disposition of cases. (Antonio A.
Fernandez Vs. Mila A. Alerta; A.M. No. P-15-3344. January 13, 2016)

5. Bar Course: Criminal Law: Estafa

Question: Is the accused criminally liable for committing the crime of three (3) counts of the crime of
Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Answer: Yes. The essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or property
received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and
"misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use
includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal
presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to
return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.In this case, all of the
elements are present; (a) Rodriguez delivered the jewelry to Cheng for the purpose of selling them on
commission basis; (b) Cheng was required to either remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the jewelry
after one month from delivery; (c) Cheng failed to do what was required of her despite the lapse of the
aforesaid period; (d) Rodriguez attempted to encash the check given by Cheng as security, but such check
was dishonored twice for being drawn against insufficient funds and against a closed account; (e)
Rodriguez demanded that Cheng comply with her undertaking, but the latter disregarded such demand;
(j) Cheng's acts clearly prejudiced Rodriguez who lost the jewelry and/or its value. (Paz Cheng y Chu
Vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 174113. January 13, 2016)

6. Bar Course: Constitutional Law: RA10367

Question: Whether RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all
related thereto, are unconstitutional.
Answer: It is unconstitutional. The right to vote is not a natural right but is a right created by law.
Suffrage is a privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as are most likely to exercise it for
the public good. As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned
upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration.
Biometrics validation did not gravely violates the Constitution, In this case, respondents have shown that
the biometrics validation requirement under RA 10367 advances a compelling state interest. It was
precisely designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly, honest, and credible elections by containing - if not
eliminating, the perennial problem of having flying voters, as well as dead and multiple registrants.
(Kabataan Party List, et al. Vs. Commission on Elections; G.R. No. 221318. December 16, 2015)
7. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Rule 45 Petition for Review
Question: Whether the petition for review under Rule 45 involves review on questions of facts?
Answer: No. Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law.
Questions of fact are not reviewable, absent any of the exceptions recognized by case law.This rule is
rooted on the doctrine that findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect
by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the
results of the case, those findings should not be ignored. Hence, absent any clear showing of abuse,
arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when
affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. (Filinvest Alabang, Inc. Vs. Century
Iro Works, Inc.; G.R. No. 213229. December 9, 2015)

8. Bar Course: Corporation Law: Test of Nationality of Corporation

Question: Whether the petitioner corporations are Filipino and can validly be issued MPSA and EP.
Answer: No. The SEC Rules provide for the manner of calculating the Filipino interest in a corporation
for purposes, among others, of determining compliance with nationality requirements (the ‘Investee
Corporation’). Such manner of computation is necessary since the shares in the Investee Corporation
may be owned both by individual stockholders (‘Investing Individuals’) and by corporations and
partnerships (‘Investing Corporation’). The said rules thus provide for the determination of nationality
depending on the ownership of the Investee Corporation and, in certain instances, the Investing
Corporation. Under the SEC Rules, there are two cases in determining the nationality of the Investee
Corporation.
Under the liberal Control Test, there is no need to further trace the ownership of the 60% (or more)
Filipino stockholdings of the Investing Corporation since a corporation which is at least 60% Filipino-
owned is considered as Filipino.
Under the Strict Rule or Grandfather Rule Proper, the combined totals in the Investing Corporation and
the Investee Corporation must be traced (i.e., “grandfathered”) to determine the total percentage of
Filipino ownership. Moreover, the ultimate Filipino ownership of the shares must first be traced to the
level of the Investing Corporation and added to the shares directly owned in the Investee Corporation.
The Grandfather Rule applies only when the 60-40 Filipino-foreign equity ownership is in doubt (i.e., in
cases where the joint venture corporation with Filipino and foreign stockholders with less than 60%
Filipino stockholdings [or 59%] invests in other joint venture corporation which is either 60-40%
Filipino-alien or the 59% less Filipino). Stated differently, where the 60-40 Filipino- foreign equity
ownership is not in doubt, the Grandfather Rule will not apply. (Narra Nickel Mining and Development
Corporation, et al. Vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation; G.R. No. 202877. December 9,
2015)
9. Bar Course: Labor Laws: Payment of Partial Bond in Appeal

Question: Is the payment of reasonable amount of cash/surety bond sufficient to suspend the period to
perfect the appeal?

Answer: To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give
parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however
defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond
that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond
equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be
deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant's motion is pending
resolution by the Commission.. In this case, the posting of a P400,000.00 cash bond equivalent to more
than 20% of the monetary judgment, together with the Motion to Reduce Bond within the reglementary
period was sufficient to suspend the period to perfect the appeal. The posting of the said partial bond
coupled with the subsequent posting of a surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment
also signified QFI's good faith and willingness to recognize the final outcome of its appeal. (Quantum
Foods, Inc. Vs. Marcelino Esloyo and Glen Magsila; G.R. No. 213696. December 9, 2015)

10. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Ordinary Appeal

Question: Whether a certiorari petition is correct remedy for dismissal of the RTC Order dismissing with
prejudice the injunction case.

Answer: No. An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order. It is not interlocutory because
the proceedings are terminated; it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. A final order is
appealable, in accordance with the final judgment rule enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court (Rules) declaring that "[a]n appeal may be taken from a judgment or fmal order that completely
disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable."

In light of the foregoing rule, respondents' remedy from the March 1, 2010 and August 11, 2010 RTC
Orders, which dismissed with prejudice the injunction case, was therefore an ordinary appeal. To perfect
the same, respondents should have filed a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from.

However, instead of doing so, respondents erroneously filed a petition for certiorari before the CA on
October 30, 2010, or way beyond the reglementary period within which to perfect an ordinary appeal.
Given the improper remedy taken, the order of dismissal rendered by the RTC has, thus, become fmal and
immutable.(Rolando S. Abadilla, Jr. Vs. Sps. Bonifacio P. Obrero, et al.; G.R. No. 210855. December
9, 2015)
11. Bar Course: Criminal Law: Falsification for the crime of falsification of private documents

Question No. 1: Is Manansala (Manansala) criminally liable for the crime of Falsification of Private
Documents, defined and penalized under Article 172 (2), in relation to Article 171 (4), of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC)?

Answer: The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172 (2) of the RPC are: (a)
that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171 (7) of the same
Code; (b) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and (c) that the falsification
caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such
damage. On the other hand the elements of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are
absolutely false. In the instant case, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found Manansala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the aforesaid crime, considering that: (a) as UMC's Petty Cash Custodian, she is
legally obligated to disclose only truthful statements in the documents she prepares in connection with
her work, such as the subject report; (b) she knew all along that Siy never made any cash advance nor
utilized the proceeds thereof for her personal use; (c) despite such knowledge, she still proceeded in
revising the subject report by inserting therein a statement that Siy made such a cash advance; and (d)
she caused great prejudice to Siy as the latter was terminated from her job on account of the falsified
report that she prepared.

Question No. 2 : Is it correct to appreciate as "mitigating circumstance" the acting under an impulse
of uncontrollable fear?

Answer: No. "Acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear" is not among the mitigating circumstances
enumerated in Article 13 of the RPC, but is an exempting circumstance provided under Article 12 (6) of
the same Code. Moreover, for such a circumstance to be appreciated in favor of an accused, the
following elements must concur: (a) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) that the fear must be real
and imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed.29 For
such defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending,
and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. (Adina B. Manansala Vs. People of the Philippines;
G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015)

12. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Due Process

Question: Whether respondents' due process rights were violated.
Answer: The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real
opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the case at bar, procedural due process
simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may
also be heard thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings,
is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. In this case, the Court finds that while there
were missteps in the proceedings conducted before the DPWH, namely: (a) respondents were not made to
file their initial comment on the anonymous complaint; and (b) no preliminary investigation was
conducted before the filing of the Formal Charge against them, contrary to the sequential procedure
under the URACCS, they were, nonetheless, accorded a fair opportunity to be heard when the Formal
Charge directed them. (Hon. Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., et al. Vs. Alvaro Y. Apurillo, et al.; G.R.
No. 204172. December 9, 2015)

13. Bar Course: Civil Law: Rescission of contracts

Question: In reciprocal obligations, is rescission available remedy for slight or casual breach?
Answer: No. The right of rescission under Article 1191 is predicated on a breach of faith that violates
the reciprocity between the parties to the contract. This retaliatory remedy is given to the contracting
party who suffers the injurious breach on the premise that it is 'unjust that a party be held bound to fulfill
his promises when the other violates his.'" the rescission (or resolution) of a contract will not be
permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental violations as would
defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement.(Rogelio S. Nolasco, et al. Vs. Celerino S.
Cuerpo, et al.; G.R. No. 210215. December 9, 2015)

14. Bar Course: Labor Law: Constructive Dismissal

Question: Does temporary "off-detail" or the period of time security guards are made to wait until they
are transferred or assigned to a new post or client constitute automatically as constructive dismissal?

Answer: No. An employee has the right to security of tenure, but this does not give him a vested right to
his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him
where his service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client. Temporary "off-detail" or the
period of time security guards are made to wait until they are transferred or assigned to a new post or
client does not constitute constructive dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond six (6)
months. The onus of proving that there is no post available to which the security guard can be assigned
rests on the employer. (Vicente C. Tatel Vs. JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc., et al.;
G.R. No. 206942. December 9, 2015)

15. Bar Course: Labor Law: Illegal Dismissal

Question: Does temporary "off-detail" or in floating status constitute automatically as constructive

dismissal?

Answer: Placing a security guard in temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" is part of management
prerogative of the employer-security agency and does not, per se, constitute a severance of the employer-
employee relationship. However, being an exercise of management prerogative, it must be exercised in
good faith - that is, one which is intended for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements.41 Moreover, due to the grim economic consequences to the security guard in which he does
not receive any salary while in temporary "off-detail" or "floating status," the employer-security agency
should bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the security guard
temporarily out of work can be assigned.Furthermore, the security guard must not remain in such status
for a period of more than six (6) months; otherwise, he is deemed terminated.. (Rafael B. Quillopa Vs.
Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency and Ismael Basabica, Jr.; G.R. No. 213814.
December 2, 2015)

16. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Institution of Civil Action

Question: Is the person who is acquitted for the crime of estafa still civilly liable?

Answer: Yes. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability
where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence, or "greater weight
of the credible evidence," is required. Thus, an accused acquitted of estafa may still be held civilly liable
where the facts established by the evidence so warrant,as in the case.(Dolores Diaz Vs. People of the
Philippines and Leticias S. Arcilla; G.R. No. 208113. December 2, 2015)

17. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Petition for Review under Rule 42

Question: Is CA erred in dismissing outright the petition for review for failure of Sps. Cayago to file
the same within the reglementary period despite that motions for extension to file pleadings has been
submitted to CA?

Answer: Yes. Appeals are perfected when it is filed within the period prescribed under the Rules of Court.
Specifically, Section 1,38 Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals to the CA taken from a
decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction should be filed and served within
fifteen (15) days, counted from notice of the judgment appealed from or from the denial of petitioner's
motion for reconsideration. The original 15-day period to appeal is extendible for an additional 15 days
upon the filing of a proper motion and the payment of docket fees within the reglementary period of appeal.
Failure to successfully comply with the aforementioned procedure, especially in filing the appeal within
the prescribed period, renders the petition for review dismissible. However, where strong considerations
of substantial justice are present, the stringent application of technical rules could be relaxed in the exercise
of equity jurisdiction as in cases where petitioners showed no intent to delay the final disposition of the
case (Spouses Amador C. Cayago, Jr. and Ermalinda B. Cayago Vs. Spouses Evelito Cantara and
Soledad Cantara; G.R. No. 203918. December 2, 2015)

18. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Remedial Law and Political Law – Certiorari under Rule 65 and
Constitutionality of Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 6770

Question: Whether the present petition, and not motions for reconsideration of the assailed CA issuances
in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 and CA-G.R. SP No. 139504, is the Ombudsman's plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy?
Answer:Yes. The case fall under the exception exceptions attend since, for the first time, the question on
the authority of the CA - and of this Court, for that matter - to enjoin the implementation of a preventive
suspension order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman is put to the fore. As a general rule, a motion for
reconsideration must first be filed with the lower court prior to resorting to the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari or prohibition since a motion for reconsideration may still be considered as a plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The rationale for the pre-requisite is to grant an opportunity
for the lower court or agency to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination
of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.This case tests the constitutional and statutory limits of
the fundamental powers of key government institutions - namely, the Office of the Ombudsman, the
Legislature, and the Judiciary - and hence, involves an issue of transcendental public importance that
demands no less than a careful but expeditious resolution.

Question: Does CA have jurisdiction over the subject matter?

Answer Yes. In this case, the Rule 65 petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 was filed by Binay,
Jr. before the CA in order to nullify the preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman, an
interlocutory order,148 hence, unappealable.In several cases decided, the Court has ruled that Rule 65
petitions for certiorari against unappelable issuances of the Ombudsman should be filed before the CA,
and not directly before this Court.

Question: Are the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 6770, valid and constitutional?

Answer: Yes. The first paragraph is declared INEFFECTIVE until the Court adopts the same as part of the
rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued; The second paragraph is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID.

The Court rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so doing,
took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by
the Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court’s constitutional rule-making authority. Through this
provision, Congress interfered with a provisional remedy that was created by this Court under its duly
promulgated rules of procedure, which utility is both integral and inherent to every court’s exercise of
judicial power.

Without the Court’s consent to the proscription, as may be manifested by an adoption of the same
as part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular issued therefor, there thus, stands to
be a violation of the separation of powers principle. In addition, it should be pointed out that the breach of
Congress in prohibiting provisional injunctions, such as in the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770, does
not only undermine the constitutional allocation of powers; it also practically dilutes a court’s ability to
carry out its functions. This is so since a particular case can easily be mooted by supervening events if no
provisional injunctive relief is extended while the court is hearing the same.

Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against “decision or findings” of the
Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus – similar to the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770-
attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and
concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the former provision is also unconstitutional and perforce,
invalid. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s posturing, Fabian Case should squarely apply since the above-
stated Ombudsman Act provisions are in part materia in that they “cover the same specific or particular
subject matter,” that is, the manner of judicial review over issuances of the Ombudsman. (Conchita Carpio
Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman Vs. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Jejomar
Erwin S. Binay, Sr. G.R. Nos. 217126-27. November 10, 2015)

19. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Jurisdiction over the subject matter

Question: Whether Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter ( Intra-Corporate Dispute/Case)?

Answer: Yes. The Dismissal is incorrect. Here, petitioners filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate
dispute, with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is the official station of
the designated Special Commercial Court, in accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. It is, therefore, from
the time of such filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
nature of the action.43 Unfortunately, the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular branch, e.g.,
Branch 276, instead of being assigned to the sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa
City, which is Branch 256. This error may have been caused by a reliance on the complaint's caption, i.e.,
"Civil Case for Injunction with prayer for Status Quo Order, TRO and Damages.

Question: Is the subject matter relates to intercorporate dispute?

Answer: Yes - Considering that it relates to petitioners' averred rights over the shares of stock offered for
sale to other stockholders, having paid the same in full. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the
controversy test, the suit between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate
relationship and pertains to the enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.

(Manuel Luis C. Gonzales and Francis Martin D. Gonzales Vs. GJH Land, Inc., et al.; G.R. No.
202664. November 10, 2015)

20. Bar Course: Civil Law: Void Contracts

Issue: What is a simulated sale?

Question: Simulation takes place when the parties do not really want the contract they have executed to
produce the legal effects expressed by its wordings. Simulation or vices of declaration may be either
absolute or relative. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the
parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter when the parties conceal their true agreement. An
absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third
person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy binds the parties to their agreement.

Here, The failure of Sulit to take possession of the property purportedly sold to her was a clear
badge of simulation that rendered the whole transaction void and without force and effect, pursuant to
Article 1409 of the Civil Code. The fact that she was able to secure a Certificate of Title to the subject
property in her name did not vest her with ownership over it. A simulated deed of sale has no legal effect;
consequently any transfer certificate of title (TCT) issued in consequence thereof should be cancelled. A
simulated contract is not a recognized mode of acquiring ownership. (Renee B. Tanchuling, et al. Vs.
Sotero C. Cantela; G.R. No. 209284. November 10, 2015)

21. Bar Course: Political Law: Administrative Law

Question: Should the accused be held administratively liable despite the dismissal of criminal case by
the Office of the Ombudsman?

Answer:Yes Borja administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.The
dismissal of the criminal case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case, in consonance
with the rule that a criminal case is separate from an administrative case and each must be disposed of
according to the facts and the law applicable to each case Moreover, in criminal cases, the guilt of the
accused must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction could be had, while
liability in administrative cases is only hinged on the lesser threshold of substantial evidence, defined as
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
(Office of the Ombudsman, represented by Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales Vs. Roger F. Borja/Lerma
S. Prudente and Damaso T. Abray Vs. Roger F. Borja; G.R. No. 201830/G.R. No. 201882. November
10, 2015)

22. Bar Course: :Legal Ethics

Question: Whether the lawyer should be held administratively liable?

Answer: The respondent's failure to carefully double-check the draft of the original SPA submitted to him
by his secretary led him to notarize a document which did not reflect the true intent of his client. His attempt
to escape administrative sanctions by pinning the blame on his secretary cannot be condoned as case law
instructs that in these instances, the lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held accountable
for these kinds of misdeeds. Respondent-Lawyer himself caused the intercalation of the notarized SPA by
inserting handwritten alterations therein which changed its meaning - thus, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Absent any competent proof, respondent's assertion that he was
verbally authorized by Magbuhos in altering the SPA is self-serving and cannot be given any credence. A
notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries 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.(Elena Biete Leones Vda. De Miller Vs. Atty. Rolando B. Miranda; A.C. No. 8507.
November 10, 2015)

23. Bar Course: Corporation Law: Shares; Management Committee

Question: Is mere inclusion as shareholder in General Information Sheet sufficient to prove that he is
shareholder of Company?
Answer: No. The mere inclusion as shareholder of petitioners in the General Information Sheet of PFSC
is insufficient proof that they are shareholders of the company.While it may be true that petitioners were
named as shareholders in the General Information Sheet submitted to the SEC, that document alone does
not conclusively prove that they are shareholders of PFSC. The information in the document will still
have to be correlated with the corporate books of PFSC. As between the General Information Sheet and
the corporate books, it is the latter that is controlling

Question: What are the 2 requisites in the application for the appointment of a management committee?
Answer: SEC. 1. Creation of a management committee. - As an incident to any of the cases filed under
these Rules or the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation, a party may apply for the appointment of a
management committee for the corporation, partnership or association, when there is imminent danger
(1) Dissipation, loss, wastage or destruction of assets or other properties; and
(2) Paralyzation of its business operations which may be prejudicial to the interest of the minority
stockholders, parties-litigants or the general public. (F & S Velasco Company, Inc., et al. Vs. Dr.
Rommel L. Madrid, et al.; G.R. No. 208844. November 10, 2015)

24. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Motion to Withdraw Appeal

Question: What is the rule in filing a motion to withdraw Appeal in CTA en Banc?
Answer:A perusal of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) reveals the lack of
provisions governing the procedure for the withdrawal of pending appeals before the CTA. Hence,
pursuant to Section 3, Rule 1 of the RRCTA, the Rules of Court shall suppletorily apply:
Sec. 3. Applicability of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court in the Philippines shall apply suppletorily
to these Rules.
Rule 50 of the Rules of Court - an adjunct rule to the appellate procedure in the CA under Rules 42, 43,
44, and 46 of the Rules of Court which are equally adopted in the RRCTA36 - states that when the case is
deemed submitted for resolution, withdrawal of appeals made after the filing of the appellee's brief may
still be allowed in the discretion of the court:
RULE 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
xxxx
Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal. — An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing
of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court.
(Emphasis supplied) (Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Nippon Express (Phils.) Corporation;
G.R. No. 212920. September 16, 2015)

25. Bar Course: Civil Law: Breach of contract;Interest

Question: What are the rules in the computation of interest in case of breach?
Answer: 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan
or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the
amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the
demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the
time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is
made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally
adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of
legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum
from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit. (WT Construction, Inc. Vs. The Province of Cebu/Province of Cebu Vs. WT
Construction, Inc.; G.R. No. 208984/G.R. No. 209245. September 16, 2015)

26. Bar Course: Labor Law: Money Claims

Issue: Who are liable in case of money claims arising from temporary total disability?

Answer: The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any
and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated
in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be
answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages(Jakerson G. Gargallo Vs. Dohel Seafront
Crewing (Manila), Inc., et al.; G.R. No. 215551. September 16, 2015)

27. Bar Course: Civil Law: Just Compensation

Question: What is just compensation?
Answer: Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner
by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly -stressed by this Court that the measure is not the taker's gain
but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to
convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial,
full [and] ample. (Land Bank of the Philippines Vs. Alfredo Habagbag, Sr. et al; G.R. No. 172352.
September 16, 2015)
28. Bar Course: Labor Law: Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter
Question: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over money claim arising from employer-employee
relationship?
Answer: No. As provided in Art. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission xxxx6.
Except claims for Employees' Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. (World's Best Gas, Inc. Vs. Henry Vital, joined by his
wife Floserfina Vital; G.R. No. 211588. September 9, 2015)

29. Bar Course: Labor Law: Security of Tenure

Question: Provision of employment contract reads, employee can still be preterminated (1) upon the
completion of an unspecified project; or (2) with or without cause, for as long as they are given a
three-day notice- Is this valid?
Answer: No. Such contract provisions are repugnant to the basic tenet in labor law that no employee may
be terminated except for just or authorized cause. Under Section 3, Article XVI of the Constitution, it is
the policy of the State to assure the workers of security of tenure and free them from the bondage of
uncertainty of tenure woven by some employers into their contracts of employment. Dismissal must be for
just or authorized causes as provided for by Labor Law, rules, and regulation. (Loralei P. Halili Vs.
Justice for Children International, et al.; G.R. No. 194906. September 9, 2015)

30. Bar Course: Remedial law: Criminal Procedure

Question: Is the criminal liability extinguished upon the death of accused in case of pending appeal?
Answer: The criminal liability is totally extinguished in view of the provisions of Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code which states: Art. 89. of Revised Penal Code - By the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
(People of the Philippines Vs. Armando Dionaldo y Ebron, et al.; G.R. No. 207949. September 9,
2015)

31. Bar Course: Remedial law: Probable Cause

Question: Is hearsay evidence admissible in determining probable cause?
Answer: Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis
for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary
investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties. (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) Vs. Hon. Orlando C.
Casimiro, et al.; G.R. No. 206866. September 2, 2015)
32. Bar Course: Legal Ethics: Notarial Practice
Question: Is the appearance of affiant to the instrument can be dispensed with?
Answer: No. Under Notarial Practice Act of 2004 provides in SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Further, a lawyer can be suspended both from the practice of law and from his notarial commission for
notarizing an SPA without the personal appearance of the affiant. (Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani
Vs. Atty. Renato G. Gasmen;A.C. No. 7073. September 1, 2015)

33. Bar Course: Taxation Law: Remedies

Question: When should administrative claim for refund or tax credits of input tax be filed?
Answer:
SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. -
(A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales. - any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated
or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales
were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid
attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been
applied against output tax: x x x.
xxxx
(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the
Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the
application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the
Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may,
within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one
hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.
It was held that the observance of the 120-day period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requisite to the
filing of a judicial claim for refund before the CTA (Ce Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. Vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; G.R. No. 200841-42. August 26, 2015)
34. Bar Course: Legal Ethics; Insubordination
Question: What is insubordination?
Answer: Insubordination is defined as a refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to
give and have obeyed. The term imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable
instructions of the employer. Applying this principle in the case, acts of loitering in the maintenance section
of the premises of CA-Cebu without any official business and without a valid pass slip from the office of the
Assistant Clerk of Court and at the same time, gambling thereat during office hours do not constitute
insubordination, there being no willful or intentional disregard of a directive or order of a superior officer.
(Teresita R. Marigomen Vs. Ronelo G. Labar;A.M. No. CA-15-33-P. August 24, 2015)

35. Bar Course: Labor Law;Compensable Injury

Question: What is a work-related injury?
Answer: "Work-related injury" as "injury(ies)" resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the
course of employment" and "work-related illness" as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a
result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein
satisfied:
a. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
b. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
c. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary
to contract it; and
d. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

Further, two (2) elements must concur for an injury or illness to be compensable: first, that the injury or
illness must be work-related; and second, that the work-related injury or illness must have existed during
the term of the seafarers employment contract. (Jose Rudy L. Bautista Vs. Elburg Shipmanagement
Philippines, Inc. Augustea Shipmanagement Italy, and/or Captain Antonio S. Nombrado; G.R. No.
206032. August 19, 2015)

36. Bar Course: Civil Law: Stipulation Pour Autrui

Question: What are the requisites for the a valid stipulation pour autrui?
Answer: The requisites of a stipulation pour autrui, namely: (1) there is a stipulation in favor of a third
person; (2) the stipulation is a part, not the whole, of the contract; (3) the contracting parties clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor to the third person — the favor is not an incidental benefit; (4) the favor is
unconditional and uncompensated; (5) the third person communicated his or her acceptance of the favor
before its revocation; and (6) the contracting parties do not represent, or are not authorized by, the third
party. In this case, the Court held that the Compromise Agreement did not include stipulation that would
even resemble a provision in favor of Africa or the respondents ((Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government Vs. Legal Heirs of Jose L.
Africa; G.R. No. 205722. August 19, 2015)
37. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Writ of Possession
Question: What is the nature of the writ of possession?
Answer: A writ of possession is an order by which the sheriff is commanded to place a person in
possession of a real or personal property. It may be issued under any of the following instances:(a) land
registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496,34 otherwise known as the "The Land
Registration Act"; (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty
and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (c) extrajudicial foreclosure
of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135,35 as amended by Act No. 4118.
The general rule is that after the lapse of the redemption period, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale
becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased who is entitled to the possession of the said
property. Upon ex parte petition, it is ministerial upon the trial court to issue the writ of possession in his
favor. The exception, however, is provided under Section 33, Rule 39 which applies suppletorily to
extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgages. Under the said provision of law, the possession of the
mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party
is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor (Aqa Global Construction, Inc. Vs.
Planters Development Bank/Je-An Supreme Builders and Sales Corporation Vs. Planters
Development Bank; G.R. No. 211649/G.R. No. 211742. August 12, 2015)

38. Bar Course: Labor Law: Compromise Agreement

Question: Will the compromise agreement executed between parties would render the certiorari
petition moot and academic?
Answer: It depends. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. To be considered valid and
binding between the contracting parties, a compromise agreement must be: (a) not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, and public policy; (b) freely and intelligently executed by and
between the parties; and (c) compliant with the requisites and principles of contracts. Once entered into,
it has the effect and the authority of res judicata upon the parties.In other words, a valid compromise
agreement may render a pending case moot and academic. However, the parties may opt to put therein
clauses, conditions, and the like that would prevent a pending case from becoming moot and academic -
such as when the execution of such agreement is without prejudice to the final disposition of the said
case. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the parties had entered into a Satisfaction of Judgment
signifying that petitioners had already given Pelagio the amount of P3,313,772.00 as full and complete
satisfaction of the NLRC ruling. While this document may be properly deemed as a compromise
agreement, it is conditional in nature, considering that it is without prejudice to the certiorari
proceedings pending before the CA, i.e., it obliges Pelagio to return the aforesaid proceeds to petitioners
should the CA ultimately rule in the latter's favor. (Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Carlos C.
Salinas, and Norwegian Crew Management A/S Vs. Cesar C. Pelagio; G.R. No. 211302. August 12,
2015).
39. Bar Course: Labor Law: Fixed-Term Contract
Question: What are the factors of a valid fixed term-contract?
Answer:The Court laid down the following indicators under which fixed-term employment could not be
construed as a circumvention of the law on security of tenure:
(a) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without
any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent; or
(b) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment should not be the activities that the employee is called
upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of
their employment relationship (Oks Designtech, Inc. represented by Zamby O. Pongad Vs. Mary
Jayne L. Caccam; G.R. No. 211263. August 5, 2015)

40. Bar Course: Labor Law: Abandonment

Question: What is abandonment?
Answer:Abandonment connotes a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume
his employment.54 Notably, "abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee
relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is, in turn, a just cause for termination of
employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the
employee after complying with the procedure prescribed by law."
For a valid finding of abandonment, two (2) elements must concur, namely:
(a) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable cause; and
(b) clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.(Fortunato R. Baron, et al. Vs. EPE
Transport, Inc. and/or Ernesto P. Enriquez; G.R. No. 202645. August 5, 2015)

41. Bar Course: Civil Law; Joint Bank Account

Question: What is the nature of joint bank account?
Answer:A joint account is one that is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more
juridical persons or entities.31 Under such setup, the depositors are joint owners or co-owners of the said
account,32 and their share in the deposits shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved,
pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to
their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the
contrary is proved.
The common banking practice is that regardless of who puts the money into the account, each of the
named account holder has an undivided right to the entire balance, and any of them may deposit and/or
withdraw, partially or wholly, the funds without the need or consent of the other,34 during their
lifetime.Nevertheless, as between the account holders, their right against each other may depend on what
they have agreed upon, and the purpose for which the account was opened and how it will be operated.
(Dominador M. Apique Vs. Evangeline Fahnenstich; G.R. No. 205705. August 5, 2015)

42. Bar Course: Labor Law: Resignation; Constructive Dismissal

Question: How Resignation differs from constructive dismissal?
Answer: Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office. It is the
voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has then no other choice but to disassociate
himself from employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment;
hence, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in
determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a
fundamental rule that when an employer interposes the defense of resignation, on him necessarily rests
the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.

In contrast, constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a
diminution in pay and other benefits. (Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc., and Antonio Steven L. Chan
Vs. Jane T. Siason; G.R. No. 215555. July 29, 2015)

43. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Filing of Petition for Review – Extension
Question: Can the filing of Petition for review before CA can be extended?
Answer: Yes.As a general rule, a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of
judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.30 This is in accordance with the
amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC31 where no provision for the filing of a motion for
extension to file a petition for certiorari exists, unlike in the previous Section 4, Rule 6532 of the Rules of
Court which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding
15 days.33
Under exceptional cases, however, the Court has held that the 60-day period may be extended subject to
the court’s sound discretion.34
The Court laid down the following recognized exceptions to the strict observance of the 60-day
reglementary period: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice
not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the
defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10)
peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice
and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge
guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with
the rules.
(Central Bicol State University of Agriculture, represented by its President, Atty. Marito T.
Bernales Vs. Province of Camarines Sur, represented by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte,
Jr. and Gawad Kalinga Foundation, Inc., represented by its Executive Director, Jose Luis
Oquiñena, and its Camarines Sur Chapter Head, Harry Azana; G.R. No. 210861. July 29, 2015)

44. Bar Course: Civil Law; Express Trust

Question: What is express trust?
Answer:Express trusts are created by direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or
will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust.
Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "No particular words are required for the creation of an express
trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." It is possible to create a trust without using the
word "trust" or "trustee."
Conversely, the mere fact that these words are used does not necessarily indicate an intention to create a
trust. The question in each case is whether the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of
relationship which to lawyers is known as trust. It is immaterial whether or not he knows that the
relationship which he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or not he knows the precise
characteristics of the relationship which is called a trust.
The express trusts prescribe in ten (10) years from the time the trust is repudiated (Wilson and Peter Go
Vs. The Estate of the Late Felisa Tamio De Buenventura, represented by Resurreccion A. Bihis, et
al./Blla A. Guerrero, et al. Vs. The Estate of the Late Felisa Tamio De Buenaventura, represented
by Resurreccion A. Bihis, et al.; G.R. Nos. 211972 & 212045. July 22, 2015)

45. Bar Course: Constitutional Law: Stop and Frisk

Question: Is probable cause necessary to warrant stop and frisk?
Answer: For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. The Court clarifies the requirement
further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine
reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk" exception:Applying the rule in this case, acts of
standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do not constitute criminal
acts.1âwphi1 These circumstances are not enough to create a reasonable inference of criminal activity
which would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03 Calag to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the
former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.
(Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales Vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 205926. July 22, 2015; G.R.
No. 205926. July 22, 2015)

46.Bar Course: Labor Laws: Grievance

Question:What is a grievance?
Answer: Section 4, Article XVII of the CBA states that "(a)ny difference of opinion, controversy, dispute
problem or complaint arising from Company-Union or Company-Worker relations concerning the
interpretation or application of this Agreement or regarding any matter affecting Company-Union or
Company-Worker relations shall be considered a grievance.(Visayan Electric Company Employees
UNION-ALU-TUCP and Casmero Mahilum Vs. Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO); G.R. No.
205575. July 22, 2015)

47. Bar Course: Civil law: Res Judicata;Lis Pendentia

Question: In loan contracts secured by mortgage, can the creditor file two (2) separate actions (1) an
action to recover payment of debt and (2) Foreclosure of mortgage?
Answer: No.For non-payment of a note secured by mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action
against the debtor. This single cause of action consists in the recovery of the credit with execution of the
security. In other words, the creditor in his action may make two demands, the payment of the debt and
the foreclosure of his mortgage. But both demands arise from the same cause, the non-payment of the
debt, and, for that reason, they constitute a single cause of action. Though the debt and the mortgage
constitute separate agreements, the latter is subsidiary to the former, and both refer to one and the same
obligation. Consequently, there exists only one cause of action for a single breach of that obligation.
Plaintiff, then, by applying the rule above stated, cannot split up his single cause of action by filing a
complaint for payment of the debt, and thereafter another complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage. If he
does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar the subsequent complaint.(Norlinda S. Marilag Vs.
Marcelino B. Martinez; G.R. No. 201892. July 22, 2015)

48. Bar Course: Taxation Law: Taxpayer’s remedies

Question: Did CTA properly assume jurisdiction over the petition assailing the imposition of excise
tax on Petron's importation of alkylate based on Section 148 (e) of the NIRC based on assessment?
Answer: No. According to tax law, The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this
Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the
commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. Other matters
arising under this Code," as stated in the second paragraph of Section 4 of the NIRC, should be
understood as pertaining to those matters directly related to the preceding phrase "disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto" and must
therefore not be taken in isolation to invoke the jurisdiction of the CTA.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Court of Tax Appeals (Second Division) and Petron
Corporation; G.R. No. 207843. July 15, 2015)

50. Bar Course: Remedial Law: Writ of execution

Question: What is the nature of writ of execution?
Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of
execution to enforce the judgment or order. Execution is the final stage of litigation, the end of the suit. It
cannot be frustrated except for serious reasons demanded by justice and equity. There is no need for the
appointment of a surveyor for the sheriff to execute the judgment.(Warlito C. Vicente Vs. Acil
Corporation; G.R. No. 196461. July 15, 2015)

51. Bar Course: Labor law: Permanent and Total Disability

Question: What is total and permanent disability compensation?
A seafarer shall be entitled to the payment of the full amount of disability compensation only if his injury,
regardless of the degree of disability, results in loss of profession, i.e., his physical condition prevents a
return to sea service. This contractual attribution refers to permanent total disability compensation.
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance
equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been
assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred
twenty(120) day(Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, et al. Vs. Romeo V. Panogalinog; G.R. No.
212049. July 15, 2015)
Question: Is heavy workload or human mistake valid defense in the case of simple neglect?
Answer: Section 1, Canon IV of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC,35 otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel," mandates that "Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and
with diligence. x x x." The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Judicial machinery can only function
if every employee performs his task with the highest degree of professionalism. Court personnel are
obligated to perform their duties properly and with diligence. Any task given to an employee of the
judiciary, however menial it may be, must be done in the most prompt and diligent way. Heavy workload
or human mistake is not a compelling reason to justify failure to perform one’s duties properly.
Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty would always
proffer a similar excuse to escape punishment, to the prejudice of the government service. It is incumbent
upon every government employee to adapt all reasonable means to cope with the heavy workload, for the
occupation demands no less than full and uncomplaining dedication to the public service.
(Re: Report of Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, OCA Chief of Office, Office of the Court Administrative
Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) on neglect of duty of Ferdinand F. Andres,
Human Resource Management Officer III, Regional Trial Court - Personnel Division, OAS-OCA,
the processor-in-charge of appointment and the alleged erroneous recording, erasure and alteration
of the performance rating on the record book; A.M. No. 2014-07-SC. July 8, 2015)
52. Bar Course: Labor law: Project-Based Employment
Question: What is a project-based employee?
Answer: For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that: (a) the employee
was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were
specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project.
Being assigned to a project or a phase thereof which begins and ends at determined or determinable
times, the services of project employees may be lawfully terminated at the completion of such project or
phase.
Consequently, in order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project"
to prevent them from attaining regular status, employers claiming that their workers are project
employees should prove that: (a) the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they
were engaged; and (b) there was indeed a project. (Dionesio Dacles Vs. Millenium Erectors
Corporation, et al.; G.R. No. 209822. July 8, 2015)