CASE DIGEST

Honasan VS DOJ Panel

On August 24, 2003, CIDG/PNP Director Eduardo Matillano Filed an Affidavit Complain with the
DOJ against crime of Coup D’etat committed by military personnel and Sen Gringo Honasan. DOJ
sent a subpoena to the petitioners and On August 27 2003 Petitioner appeared and filed for
Motion for clarification over the jurisdiction of the DOJ on the case and contended that the OMB
has the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigations since he is a Public officer that has
a salary grade 31 so the case falls exclusively for the sandiganbayan and not regular courts. On
the view of the additional affidavits, Counter affidavits were directed to be filed and Sen Honasan
filed for a petition for certiorari regarding the grave abuse of discretion of the DOJ for deferring
the motion for clarification and contended that they do not have jurisdiction over the case. SC
finds the petition without merit and based the authority of the DOJ Panel on the 1987
Administrative Code Sec 3. But the petitioner claimed that Article 11 Sec 13 of the 1987
Constitution is the prevailing law. Court Is not convinced and stated that the latter does not
exclude other government agencies tasked by law to investigate and prosecute cases involving
P.O. Thus, DOJ panel is not prohibited from conducting the investigation and with the concurrent
jurisprudence, the respective office heads came up with the OMB- DOJ joint circular No 95-001,
an internal agreement outlining the authority and responsibilities among two offices in the
conduct of preliminary investigations which does not remove the DOJ Panel the authority to
conduct said investigation. Wherefore, petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Gatbonton VS NLRC

On November 1998, A civil engineering student of respondent Mapua Institute of Technology

filed a letter complaint against petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton, an associate professor of MIT
for unfair/unjust grading system, sexual harassment, and conduct of unbecoming of an
academician which placed petitioner under a 30 day preventive suspension effective January
11, 1999. Petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal suspension, damages, and
attorney fees. The Labor Arbiter rendered his 30 day suspension to be illegal and directed the
respondents to pay his wages. The rest of his claims were dismiss. Both filed for an appeal with
the petitioner questioning the dismissal of his other claims. NLRC set aside the LA decision,
which led to the petitioner filing for a special civil act for certiorari with the Court of Appeal but,
court affirmed the NLRC decision. Thus petitioner filed for the review of certiorari of the
decision of the CA for not considering the publication of RA 7877 that were not promulgated at
the time of his suspension and the lack of award of the damages. Supreme court partially
granted the petition wherein it did not find any legal basis for the suspension thus granting his
payment of wages for the duration of the 30 days preventive suspension, while setting aside his
claim for damages for lack of basis.

No. The 30 day preventive suspension is not enforceable.

Marcos VS Judge Pamintuan

On November 15, 2006, Petitioner Marcos filed a complaint affidavit charging Judge Pamintuan
with gross Ignorance of the law for reversing a final and executory order of then Judge Reyes.
Respondent set the case for hearing to release the Golden Buddha to its rightful owner.
Petitioner was one of the subpoenaed parties and argued that the final judgement of the lower
courts are not reviewable even by the Supreme Court because it conflicts with the Rule 36 of
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended
respondent to be dismissed from service, forfeit his retirement benefit, and disqualify him from
re-employment for Gross Ignorance of the Law. Court thus suspended respondent which moved
the latter for reconsideration and a motion for early resolution of the motion for
reconsideration. OCA granted motion and Respondent then sent a letter in request for his
backpay and benefits but court denied the request for being premature and for lack of merit.
Court then agrees with the recommendation of OCA due to the respondent failing to conform
to the high standards of competence required of judges under the code of Judicial conduct.
Court thus dismissed respondent from service. Petitioner was ordered to CEASE and DESIST any
official act or function appurtenant to his office upon this decision.

People VS. Quiachon

Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified rape on his 8-year-old
deaf- mute minor daughter. Rowel, appellant’s son, testified and reported to the police along
with his mother’s sister Carmelita Mateo about the incident. Dr. Miriam Sta. Romana Guialani
of PNP General Hospital Health Services conducted the physical examination and confirmed the
compatibility of Rowena’s claims during her testimony. Appellant testified that he was invited
to the brgy hall and was shocked to learn the accusations of rape by his daughter. He was taken
to the Karangalan police station, then taken to Pasig City Police station, and thereafter, to jail.
Appellant denied the accusations and contended that the relatives of his late common law wife
held a grudge against him and were interested in his properties. Regional Trial Court, Pasig City,
Branch 159 rendered appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape
penalized under Article 266 A and B of the RPC and was elevated to this court for the reason
that death penalty was imposed on the appellant. The case was transferred to the Court of
Appeals and affirmed with modifications the decision of the trial court because the testimonies
of Rowena and Rowel were supported by physical evidence presented by Dr. Guialani in her
medico-legal report and appellant only proffer bare denial which was not looked upon by court.
CA ordered accused to pay the victim Php 75,000 civil indemnity, Php 75, 000 moral damages,
and Php 25,000 exemplary damages and affirmed Death penalty. However, In the enactment of
RA No. 9346, death penalty is abolished, thus appellant is meted with Reclusion perpetua and
maintain the award of Php 75,000 for rape committed or effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty would have been imposed.

Jarillo VS. People

On September 29, 2009, The court affirmed petitioner Jarillo’s conviction for Bigamy. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration, contending that the marriage were entered before the effectivity of
the family code which thus apply Section 29 of the Marriage Law that states that marriage
contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person
other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void, instead of the Article 40 of the Family code.
Court finds petitioner’s argument to lack merit and stated that Article 40, as a rule of procedure,
be applied retroactively based on the provisions of Article 256 of the Family Code. Court thus,
denied the Motions for reconsideration with finality.

California Clothing, Inc. VS. Quiñones

On July 25, 2001, Respondents Shirley Quiñones, a reservation ticketing agent of Cebu Pacific Air
in Lapu Lapu City, went inside a GUESS USA Boutique at the 2 nd floor of the Robinson’s
Department store in Cebu city and purchased a black jean worth Php 2,098, as evidently shown
in the receipt. A guess employee re- approached her while on the sky walk and informed her that
she failed to pay for the item but respondent presented a receipt and suggested they talk about
it in her office on the basement floor where petitioners allegedly humiliated her in front of her
clients and demanded payment for her jeans. Petitioners also allegedly gave a letter to the
director of Cebu pacific air twice, narrating the incident but was both dismiss as it was none of
his concern. A letter was also given to the HR Department of the Store for the purpose of
cancelling her Robinson’s Credit Card. Respondent thus, filed a complaint for damages before the
RTC for suffering physical anxiety, sleepless night, social humiliation (Etc.) and demanded Moral,
nominal, and exemplary damages. Petitioners counterclaimed and sought for moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney fees and litigation fees. Both were dismissed by the RTC, and
court found no evidence to prove the bad faith of guess employees and the letters were in good
faith. On appeal, Court of appeals reversed the decision and ordered Ybanez and California
Clothing Inc to pay Php 50,000 Moral Damages and Php 20, 000 Attorney fees for acting in bad
faith in sending the demand letter to respondents employer. CA opined the letter as not a letter
for assistance but to subject her to ridicule and humiliation that would pressure her to pay.
Ybanez moved for reconsideration but was denied and thus move to petition for certiorari.
Petition was without merit. Petitioners tarnished respondents reputation in the eyes of her
employer, and abused their rights under Article 20 and 21 of the civil code. Court thus, denied
the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the moral damages and attorney fees.
Diaz VS Encanto

Plaintiff Appellant Diaz has been a professor of U.P. since 1963 and served in 1988 in the
College of Mass Communication. She applied for sick leave effective 23rd November 1987 to
March 1st and returned March 2, 1988 with a Report for Duty Form. The following day Diaz filed
for Sabbatical leave to the Office of the president and Cecilia Lazaro, Chair of the Broadcast
Department, recommended to the CMC Dean Encanto to grant her a leave of absence that she is
qualified for. Encanto sent the request to the Secretary of U.P. recommending denial of request
and ordered Ermelina Kalagayan to hold Diaz’s Salary. Chancellor Tabujara recommended a grant
of leave without pay in order to hire a substitute. U.P. Secretary referred the fact of denial of the
request to Abad, VP for academic affairs. Abad returned the reference slip that indicated Diaz
would put down in writing the historical backdrop as it were to the latest denial of her sabbatical
leave and referred the matters to the U.P. President. Edgard Pacheco, Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, and Atty. Pio Prago, HRDO Director, instructed Encanto that until Diaz
accomplishes her certificate if Report for Duty, and confirmation of the Dean of CMC for her
actual report for duty date, she is considered AWOL and would not be able to claim her salary
despite her being able to teach for AY 1988-89. Diaz filed a complaint with the office of the
Ombudsman against Abad, Tabujara, Encanto, and all officials of U.P. for the violation of Sec3(e)
of RA 3019 involving the legality of a Report for Duty Form as a prerequisite to the payment of
her salary where it was dismissed. Diaz filed for certiorari in the SC and filed another petition with
the same issue which was dismissed because there was no evidence of bad faith in denying of
the request and requirement for Report of Duty form. Diaz filed a complaint with the RTC, Pasig,
Metro Manila against respondents to pay her damages for joint tortfeasor, court ruled that delay
in the resolution of her application was unreasonable and unconscionable and ordered
respondents payment of Php 133,665.50 total salary, Php300,000 for moral damages, Php60,000
exemplary damages, Php 50,000 attorney fees, and cost of suit. Motions for reconsideration by
respondents were dismissed and Encanto was absolved from liability. Court dismissed the claim
of petitioner against Encanto on the grounds that her function was purely recommendatory in
nature. Both appealed to the Court of appeals, with respondents arguing that they did not act in
bad faith, while the petitioner questioned the liability of respondent Encanto. CA reversed the
decision of RTC and ordered U.P and appropriate officials to pay petitioner Php 21,879.64 Unpaid
salary only, Court found neither negligence nor bad faith on respondents. Petitioner thus filed, a
motion for reconsideration and was denied, and affirmed with modification the respondents to
pay petitioner withheld salary from July 1, 1988 to October 31, 1988 with a legal interest rate of
6% per annum.
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and Ruby Lim VS Reyes

On October 13, 1994, Respondent Reyes was invited by Dr. Filart, a friend of several years, in
celebration of the natal day of Mr Tsuruoka, the hotel manager. Respondent carried the basket
of fruits which was a present to the latter to the celebrant. When the respondent was lined up
at the buffet table, he was allegedly stopped by petitioner Ruby Lim, Executive secretary of the
hotel, and in a loud voice told him to leave the party. Respondent explained that he was invited
by Dr. Filart, who at that time ignored him, He was then escorted by a Makati Policeman who
asked him to step out of the hotel. Respondent filed for Php 1,000,000 actual damages, Php
1,000,000 moral damages, and Php 200,000 Attorney Fees. Lim admitted having asked Reyes to
leave but not to the extent that the latter painted, petitioner even allegedly screamed and
threatened to throw the food at her. Dr Filart also gave her side of the story and said that she
never invited Reyes, who volunteered to carry the present. She reminded Reyes to go down
immediately, but saw him talking to Col. Batung and later made a scene by shouting. Court
dismissed the petitioner’s complaint and ratiocinated that petitioner assumed the risk of being
thrown out as he was uninvited. On appeal, Court of Appeals reversed the Trial court’s ruling and
contended that Ms. Lim’s action of approaching several guests exposed the latter to ridicule.
Court thus, ordered respondents to pay Php 200,000 exemplary fees, Php 200,000 moral fees,
and Php 10,000 Attorney Fees. CA Affirmed former decision on the motions for reconsideration,
thus respondents filed instant petition for review and contended that Reyes was gatecrasher who
should assume the risk. However, pursuant to Article 19-21 of the New Civil Code they were still
under obligations to treat him fairly. As the trial and appellate court reach divergent and
irreconcilable conclusions, court used latent powers to review the findings of facts. Court favored
petition filed by Lim and Nikko Hotel Garden because of the facts provided primarily on the cross
examinations done whereas Ms. Lim talked to her very close during incident and the nature of
work of Ms. Lim who had been in the hotel business for 20 years where it is believed that being
polite and discreet are values emulated. Court granted the respondents petition and reversed
the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed RTC decision.

Ardiente Vs. Pastorfide

On June 2, 1994, Joyce Ardiente, owner of a housing unit at Emily Homes Bulacan in Cagayan De
Oro, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with respondents Pastorfide granting all rights
and interest of house in consideration of Php 70,000 whereas MOA includes stipulation that the
water and power bill shall be accounted by Pastorfide in the name of Ardiente. On March 12,
1999, water connections were cut off without notice which prompted Pastorfide to proceed to
Cagayan De Oro Water District (COWD). A certain Mrs. Madjos told Pastorfide that she has been
delinquent since 1998 December until 1999 February and that it was at the instance of Ardiente
that the supplies were cut off. Pastorfide paid the biils and through her attorney wrote a letter
to the COWD to explain who authorized the cut off through which General Manager Gonzalez
replied and reiterated that it was Ardiente. Pastorfide filed a complaint for damages angainst the
petitioner, COWD and the Manager, in which the trial court issued a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction on December 14, 1999 which restored the water supply of water. RTC
ordered defendants to pay Php 200,000 moral damages, Php 200,000 exemplary damages, and
Php 50,000 for attorney fees. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals and reduced
the damages for Php 100,000 each for moral and exemplary damages and Php 25,000 for
attorney fees. COWD, Gonzalez and Petitioner both filed for motions for reconsideration that
were denied by the CA and thus COWD and Gonzalez filed for review on certiorari with a denied
decision as reviewed that CA did not commit any error. COWD and Gonzalez, once again filed for
motions for reconsideration but the same was denied with FINALITY. COWD and Gonzalez filed
for instant petition but were impleaded as respondents in this petition which cannot be done
because they were co parties of petitioners before the RTC and CA. Court thus denied instant
petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Hing VS Choachuy, Sr.

On August 23, 2005, petitioner spouse Bill and Victoria Hing filed a complaint for Injunction and
damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of preliminary mandatory Injunction/ TRO with the
RTC against respondents Choachuy. Petitioners lots were adjacent to the property of
petitioners where respondents lot were constructed with an auto repair shop building (ALDO
GOODYEAR SERVITEC) . Aldo filed a case against the petitioners for Injunction and Damages
with Writ of preliminary mandatory Injunction/ TRO for constructing a fence without valid
permit and would destroy the wall of its building. Court denied Aldo’s petition for failure to
substantiate its allegations; that, in order to get evidence to support the said case, respondents
on June 13, 2005 illegally set-up and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two
video surveillance cameras facing petitioners’ property; also took pictures of petitioners’ on-
going construction; where the acts of respondents violate petitioners’ right to privacy.
respondents claimed that they did not install the video surveillance cameras They also clarified
that they are not the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders. RTC issued an Order granting
the application for a TRO. Respondents moved for a reconsideration but the RTC denied the
same in its Order, thus respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari CA issued its
Decision26 granting the Petition for Certiorari. The CA ruled that the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion because petitioners failed to show a clear
and unmistakable right to an injunctive writ. the Petition is hereby GRANTED.
Quirino Tomlin II vs. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II

Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for backing out on his monetary
obligations/loan and for issuing bouncing checks, which violates the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Batas Pambansa BLG. 22. Tomlin stated that Moya loaned PHP 600,000 from
him. When Tomlin tried to encash the loan payment through the post-dated checks issued by
Moya, the bank dishonored all the checks. Also, the complainant filed for the respondent’s
disbarment. Respondent filed several motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading
and a motion to dismiss complaint. Respondent also argued that the complainant did not inform
IBP about the cases he filed for violations of B.P BLG 22 and that filing of the case despite
pendency is a form of harassment. After several filings of motion for extension, the Commission
on Bar Discipline denied his last motion for extension and declared him in default. The
respondent then filed a manifestation with motion to terminate proceedings on the ground of
prescription and omnibus motion to recall the default order. Therefore, the Commission on Bar
Discipline required both parties to submit a position paper, but only the complainant submitted
one. So, it was decided that the responded will be suspended from practice of law for two years,
stating that lawyers have a moral obligation to uphold the rule of law but the respondent failed
to have the legal discipline and proficiency to become an effective lawyer.

Pimentel VS Pimentel

On 7 February 2005, petitioner Joselito Pimentel received summons to appear before the
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72 for the pre-trial and trial for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage due to psychological incapacity. On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an
urgent motion to suspend the proceedings on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial
question. Petitioner asserted that the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key
element in parricide, then the outcome of this civil case would have a bearing in the criminal
case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City. RTC denied his motion and held that the
pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that warrants the
suspension of the criminal case before it Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 22
August 2005 Order,the RTC Quezon City denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition
for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order before the Court of Appeals for the decisions of the RTC and was dismissed by the CA.
Court ruled that in the criminal case for frustrated parricide, the issue is whether the offender
did the crime of parricide directly by overt acts or by accident. On the other hand, the issue in
the civil action for annulment of marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the marital obligations. Petitioner thus filed a petition for review of the decision
of CA., which was denied for lack of merit and affirmed the CA’s decision
Ty-De ZuZuarregui VS Villarosa

On August 2000, Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi, the sister of petitioner’s late father
Alexander Torres Ty, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of
her mother, Bella Torres, before the RTC of Pasig City. Petitioner initially opposed Rosemary’s
petition, but they eventually reached an amicable settlement and entered into a compromise
agreement which the RTC approved. Rosemary’s alleged siblings, Peter Torres Ty and Catherine
Torres Ty-Chavez filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition to Annul Judgment Approving
Compromise Agreement. Respondent then filed a petition-in-intervention in the action for
annulment of judgment Fannie Torres-Ty claiming she is also biological siblings of the late Bella
thus, entitled to inherit from her. Petitioner and Rosemary filed their answers to which they
denied that Peter, Catherine, and Fannie were heirs of Bella but were abandoned children who
were taken pity on and brought up as their own but was never legally adopted thus they don’t
have the rights of legitimate children. Fannie filed a complaint for falsification and perjury
against petitioner and Rosemary. Petitioner and Rosemary filed a joint motion to suspend the
preliminary investigation on the ground of a pending prejudicial question before the CA. The
investigating prosecutor denied the motion and found probable cause against petitioner and
Rosemary for falsification of public documents. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the
DOJ and a motion to defer proceedings before the MeTC for a pending appeal before the DOJ.
They also filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspend proceedings on the ground of
prejudicial question. However, petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the DOJ, while her motions
before the MeTC were denied and agreed with the prosecutor that the issue before the CA in
the action for annulment of judgment is the validity of the compromise agreement while the
criminal case involves their liability for falsification of public documents. The MeTC also denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the RTC of Makati City which was denied on the ground that there was no prejudicial
question. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by the RTC. Petitioner then
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC’s
orders which were dismissed on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was
signed only by petitioner’s counsel and not by petitioner herself. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Hence the present recourse where petitioner alleges the err in
decisions of the CA and the court ruled that the petition is GRANTED on grounds that it is finally
adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently
not entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, then there is no more basis to proceed with the
criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed falsification in her pleadings
filed before the RTC of Pasig City, the truth of her statements regarding the filiation of Peter,
Catherine and Fannie having been judicially settled. The Court of Appeals decision REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The criminal proceedings against petitioner Krizia Katrina Ty-De Zuzuarregui
ordered SUSPENDED.

Ferrer v. Spouses Alfredo and Imelda Diaz

Spouses Alfredo and Imelda Diaz, represented by their daughter Reina Comandante obtained a
loan from Atty. Ferrer worth PHP 1, 118, 228 secured through a Real Estate Mortgage Contract
and issued and a Promissory Note payable within six months or up to November 7, 1999 and as
well as postdated checks to secure payment of said loan. Comadante also executed the “Waiver
of Hereditary Rights and Interests of Over a Real Property (Still Unvidied)” to waive her rights
over the property she will inherit from her parents worth PHP 600,000. However, the parents of
Comandante revoked their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored
upon presentment and the respondents failed and refused to settle the loan payment. The
petitioner filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage
Contract against the respondents. RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered respondents
to pay the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY
EIGHT PESOS and TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) and to pay the costs of suit. The Pangans,
the Diazes, and Comandante appealed to the CA. Regional Trial Court affirmed and MODIFIED decision and
ordered Comandante and Spouses Diaz to jointly and severally pay plaintiff the sum of Php 1,118, 228.00;
and Comandante and Spouses Diaz to jointly and severally pay plaintiff the amount of Php10,000.00 plus
cost of suit. Petitioner files for review on certiorari and insisted that the pangans should be liable as well.
Court denies the petition and excludes the pangans rom all liability.

The inscription of the adverse claim of petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer on T.C.T. No. N-209049 is hereby
ordered CANCELLED. Insofar as its other aspects are concerned, the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE and
VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 for further
proceedings in accordance with this Decision.
Petitioner’s preventive suspension was based on respondent MIT’s Rules and
Regulations for the Implementation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, or
R.A. No. 7877. Rule II, Section 1 of the MIT Rules and Regulations whereas:

“Section 1. Preventive Suspension of Accused in Sexual Harassment Cases.—Any member of

the educational community may be placed immediately under preventive suspension during
the pendency of the hearing of the charges of grave sexual harassment against him if the
evidence of his guilt is strong and the school head is morally convinced that the continued
stay of the accused during the period of investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal
operations of the institution or poses a risk or danger to the life or property of the other
members of the educational community.”

But it must be noted, that respondent published said rules and regulations only on
February 23, 1999 and considering that at the time of his preventive suspension on
January 11, 1999, the rules have not been promulgated yet but enforced on him.
Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation Whereas; The Mapua Rules is
one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose
is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general application.