TOPIC: ORDINARY APPEALED CASES (RULE 44)

PATRICIA SIBAYAN v. EMILIO COSTALES, et al.

G.R. No. 191492
JULY 4, 2016
PEREZ, J.

SUMMARY

Q: The respondents intruded the property of petitioner. Thus, petitioner filed a

case against them. RTC dismissed the case on the ground of laches. MR was
also denied which made the petitioner elevate the matter to the CA. CA ordered
petitioner to file Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt of the copy of the
notice. Petitioner’s counsel received notice on November 17, 2008. However,
the petitioner was only able to file the brief on June 19, 2009 or 139 days after
the lapse of reglementary period. Is the appeal considered dismissed by failure
to file appellant’s brief?

A: Yes. Sibayan’s counsel was not able to file the brief on the reglementary
period which consequently results in the abandonment of the appeal and
dismissal of the case. Hence, the appeal is considered dismissed or abandoned
by the failure to file appellant’s brief.

TOPIC: PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

AILEEN ANGELA S. ALFORNON v. RODULFO DELOS
SANTOS AND EDSEL A. GALEOS
G.R. No. 203657
July 11, 2016
BRION, J.

SUMMARY

Q: When Alfornon applied as a casual employee she indicated in her PDS that
she has not been formally charged despite remembering that she was
previously charged with the crime of estafa before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu
City. Later on, Mayor Argaon issued Memorandum Order informing Alfornon
that a copy of her warrant of arrest in the estafa case had been forwarded to
his office and required her to show cause why she should not be dismissed
from the service. After considering the affidavits and documents filed,
the LGU-Argao issued a report recommending that Alfornon be dismissed
from the service. Mayor Galeos ordered Alfornon’s dismissal. Upon appeal,
CSC reversed Mayor Galeos and found that Alfornon’s right to due
process was impaired because a formal investigation was immediately
conducted without Galeos – as the disciplining authority – issuing any formal
charge. Is there a violation of Alfornon’s right to due process?

A: No. For as long as the right to due process is recognized and respected,
administrative tribunals may relax the technical rules of procedure. The
essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. In the present
case, Alfornon was given every opportunity to face the charges of dishonesty
against her. She was able to give her answer during the initial investigation
before Galeos and before the formal investigation conducted by the LGU-Argao
Fact-Finding Committee.

TOPIC: POST-JUDGMENT REMEDY - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(RULE 52)
BARRIO FIESTA RESTAURANT, et al. v. HELEN C. BERONIA
G.R. No. 206690
JULY 11, 2016
BRION, J.

SUMMARY

Q: A complaint for illegal dismissal is filed against Barrio Fiesta Restaurant.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in Beronia’s favor. The NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter on appeal. Beronia appealed the NLRC’s Decision to the Court of
Appeals (CA). In the June 21, 2012 decision, the CA reinstated the LA’s
decision, declaring that Beronia had been dismissed without just cause and
without the observance of due process. On November 29, 2012, the petitioners,
through new counsel, filed with the CA an Entry of Appearance with
Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration. The CA denied the motion for
reconsideration for being 138 days late. Is petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration timely filed?

A: No. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was filed well beyond the fifteen-
day reglementary period. There is no question that the petitioners filed
their motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision 138 days beyond the
fifteen-day reglementary period for filing the motion. The records show that
petitioner the petitioners’ counsel of record (prior to new counsel) has received
a copy of the CA’s June 21, 2012 decision on June 29, 2012, even though,
subsequently, petitioners manifested that they had terminated their
counsel of record’s services on February 19, 2013.
TOPIC: PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS (RULE 42)
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS
of MANUEL BOLAÑOS
G.R. No. 221636
JULY 11, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.

SUMMARY

Q: DAR subjected the land of the private respondents to the coverage of the
CARP. Private respondents rejected the valuation of the petitioner but the latter
still deposited the amount of the valuation in their favor. Private respondents
filed before RTC Naga, a case for determination of just compensation. The SAC
ordered the petitioner to re-value the property, which it did, but the new
valuation was still rejected by the private respondent. A notice of appeal under
Rule 41 was filed by the private respondent. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that private respondents availed a wrong mode of appeal. Are
appeals from the decision of the SAC must be via a petition for review under
Rule 42 and not by an ordinary appeal.

A: Yes. The proper mode of appeal from the decisions of RTCs sitting as SACs
is by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and not through
an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law clearly and categorically states that said
mode of appeal should be adopted.

TOPIC: PETITION FOR MANDAMUS (RULE 65)

HAMBRE J. MOHAMMAD v. GRACE BELGADO-SAQUETON
G.R. No. 193584
JULY 12, 2016
SERENO, CJ.

SUMMARY

Q: Petitioner appointment as PARO II was temporary as he had no CSEE. He

requested the regional secretary of DAR-ARMM to change his appointment
status from temporary to permanent pursuant to an RTC decision concerning
the change in status of division superintendents. Respondent denied the
request on the ground of the inapplicability of the RTC Decision, which was
binding only on the parties to that case, and the case is still under appeal.
Petitioner did not elevate the case to the CSC proper. Instead, he filed a special
civil action for mandamus before the RTC. Is petition for mandamus proper?
A: Yes. Petitioner admits that while administrative remedies were available to
him, he had invoked an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. However, the dismissal of the petition for mandamus
was warranted by the doctrine because the issue raised by petitioner is not a
purely legal question.

TOPIC: EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS (RULE

39)
SPS. ARCHIBAL LATOJA AND CHARITO LATOJA v. HON. ELVIE LIM, et al.
G.R. No. 198925
JULY 13, 2016
SERENO, CJ

SUMMARY

Q: For failure of Cardona II to repurchase the property from Cabe within one
year as agreed upon in the deed, Cabe filed a Petition for Consolidation of
Ownership. The trial court granted the petition. Cardona II questioned the trial
court's Decision by filing with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Rule 65 Petition for
Certiorari which was dismissed by the CA. The Supreme Court also denied
Cardona’s appeal. An Entry of Judgment was issued. Accordingly, respondent
Cabe filed a motion for execution of the RTC Decision. The RTC issued a Writ of
Execution. Thereafter, Cabe prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Possession,
which Judge Lim granted. Did Judge Lim committed grave abuse of discretion
in granting the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession?

A: Yes. Cabe sought the writ as a consequence of the trial court's Decision
ordering the consolidation of the title over the subject property and vesting
absolute ownership thereof in her name. Since the instant case clearly does not
fall among the four instances where a writ of possession may issue, the
issuance of the Writ of Possession was not proper.

TOPIC: DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; LIBERAL

CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE
FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, et al. v. SPS. ISAAC AND CONCEPCION RONULO
G.R. No. 187400
JULY 13, 2016
SERENO, CJ

SUMMARY

Q: A Free Patent Application was filed by petitioners. Respondents asked the

OP to investigate their claim. The OP referred the matter to the Bureau of
Lands (BoL), which then referred it to the DENR Region IV Office for
appropriate action. Meantime, petitioner Fernandez sold the property to
Spouses Ligon. Regional Executive Director Principe subsequently issued an
Order finding that petitioner Fernandez failed to establish his claim of
ownership over the land in question and was found to have never occupied or
possessed even a portion thereof. Petitioner Fernandez moved for
reconsideration, which was later on denied. On appeal, the DENR Secretary
reversed the ruling and deemed respondent’s claims as a collateral attack
against the title of the spouses Ligon. Respondents moved for the
reconsideration of the Decision, but the DENR Secretary denied their motion.
On January 16, 2000, respondents filed a second Motion for
Reconsideration, in which they presented the Resolution of the Court in the
ejectment case filed by Spouses Ligon. Respondents claimed that the Court's
denial of the Petition in that case in effect sustained the findings of the MTC,
the RTC, and the CA that petitioner Fernandez had never been in actual
occupation and possession of the subject property, consistent with the findings
of Director Principe. The DENR Secretary issued an Order denying
respondents' second Motion for Reconsideration. On October 10, 2000,
Fernandez filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal with the OP, citing respondents'
failure to perfect the appeal. Is the second Motion for Reconsideration filed by
respondents before the DENR Secretary valid and thus tolled the period of
appeal to the Office of the President?

A: The appeal may be given due course on the basis of the second Motion for
Reconsideration. Both parties presented allegations that the other committed
technical procedural lapses in the course of this case. However, in some cases,
it is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a
technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of
justice. In those cases, in which technicalities are dispensed with, the courts
do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by law.

TOPIC: PLEADINGS – ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS

WILFRED GACUS YAMSON, et al. v. DANILO C. CASTRO AND GEORGE F.
INVENTOR
G.R. Nos. 194763-64
JULY 20, 2016
REYES, J.

SUMMARY

Q: Petitioners and respondents are all officials and employees of the Davao City
Water District (DCWD). Petitioners were charged for anomalies
surrounding the drilling contracts for two related projects named VES 15 and
21. After more than six years, the respondents filed several joint Affidavit-
Complaint with the Ombudsman, charging the petitioners for violation of RA
3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Subsequently, the
Ombudsman found the petitioners administratively liable for grave
misconduct and ordered their dismissal from service. The Ombudsman's
ruled that the VES 15 Project did not fall under the exceptions to competitive
bidding in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1594,35 and that the VES 15 Project
was riddled with irregularities. On appeal, petitioners argued that respondents
committed forum shopping by the filing of the separate complaints filed
against them in the Ombudsman, given that these arose from the same set of
facts involving identical rights asserted and prayed for the same relief, and
thus, entitling the dismissal of the cases. The CA rejected this contention,
ruling that the rule on forum shopping applies exclusively to judicial
cases/proceedings and not to administrative cases, and as such, the filing of
the identical complaints with the Ombudsman does not violate the rule. Is
there a violation on the rule against forum shopping?

A: Yes. The rule on forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or

proceedings, and not to administrative cases. Nonetheless, A.O. No. 07, as
amended by A.O. No. 17, explicitly removed from the ambit of the rule the
administrative cases filed before it when it required the inclusion of a
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping in complaints filed before it.

TOPIC: JURISDICTION – COURT OF APPEALS

JULIUS BAUTISTA, et al. v. LT. COL. BENITO DONIEGO, JR., et al.
G.R. No. 218665
JULY 20, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

SUMMARY

Q: A complaint for forcible entry was filed by Bautista against respondents.

MTCC ruled in favor of Bautista. On appeal, RTC reversed MTCC Decision.
Bautista filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, and thereafter,
a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review (Motion for
Extension) before the CA, copy furnished the RTC. In his motion, J. Bautista
alleged that the RTC's Decision was received by Bautista, et al. 's counsel on
January 16, 2015 and that they had until January 31, 2015 within which to
file a petition for review. However, because of their counsel's illness, they
prayed for an additional period of thirty (30) days to secure a new counsel and
to file their petition for review. RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration and
thereafter granted respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of execution
from which Bautista, et al. sought reconsideration. The CA, meanwhile, denied
Bautista's Motion for Extension, for failure to pay the required docket fees.
Subsequently, Bautista filed a Petition for Review before the CA, with
appropriate payment of the prescribed docket fees, assailing the RTC Decision
and the Order denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. Did the CA err in
merely noting without action Bautista, et al.' s Petition for Review and other
subsequent pleadings, thus, denying them due course.

A: Yes. Rules of Court require that in an appeal by way of a petition for review,
the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of the
petition and the payment of docket and other lawful fees. To perfect the appeal,
the party has to file the petition for review and to pay the docket fees within the
prescribed period. The law and its intent are clear and unequivocal that the
petition is perfected upon its filing and the payment of the docket fees.
Consequently, without the petition, the CA cannot be said to have acquired
jurisdiction over the case. The appellate jurisdiction did not attach with the
filing of J. Bautista's Motion for Extension. Notably, the pleading filed was a
mere motion for extension and not a petition for review, and there was no
payment of the required docket fees.

TOPIC: PLEADINGS – ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS

GRACE PARK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND WOODLINK REALTY
CORP v. EAST WEST BANKING CORP.
G.R. No. 210606
JULY 27, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

SUMMARY

Q: Petitioners filed an Amended Complaint for Injunction and Annulment of

Foreclosure Sale against respondents before the RTC-Malolos. In their Answer
and Motion to Dismiss, EBC, Allied, and Security contended that the complaint
before the RTC-Malolos should be dismissed on the grounds of forum shopping
and litis pendentia. The RTC-Malolos dismissed Civil Case No. 543-M-2010 on
the ground of forum shopping. It found that several similarities existed between
the complaint filed before it and that in Civil Case No. 10-323 pending in the
RTC-Makati. The CA upheld the RTC-Malolos's dismissal of Civil Case No. 543-
M-2010 on the ground of forum shopping. Did the CA correctly uphold the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 543-M-2010 pending before the RTC-Malolos on the
ground of forum shopping in the concept of litis pendentia.
A: No. Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 543-M-2010 on the
ground of forum shopping and/ or litis pendentia.

TOPIC: PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (RULE 38)

HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN v.. MUNICIPALITY OF KALAMANSIG,
SULTAN KUDARAT, et al.
G.R. No. 204899
JULY 27, 2016
DEL CASTILLO, J.

SUMMARY

Q: Petitioners filed a case for recovery of possession of real property against

respondents. After obtaining a favorable judgment, petitioners executed the
same. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Issue an Order to the Sheriff
Prohibiting Him from Executing an Alleged Judgment in the Above-Entitled
Case, seeking to restrain petitioners from enforcing the decision on the
ground that since the record thereof was not reconstituted, then there is no
judgment in said case to be enforced; and that for failure to reconstitute the
record, petitioners have no other recourse but to file the case anew, as Act
No. 311017 requires. The trial court granted the motion, and denied
petitioners’ subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners filed an original
Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which was denied on various procedural
grounds. Did the CA correctly dismiss petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari on
three grounds: first, for failure to implead the trial court as required under
Rule 65; second, for failure to serve a copy of the Petition upon respondents,
instead of their previous counsel; and, third, for having been verified by only
one of the co-heirs/petitioners.

A: No. The CA should not have dismissed the Petition. First, petitioners’ failure
to implead the trial court is not fatal, although violative of Section 5, Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules. Second, on the lack of appropriate service of the Petition
for Certiorari on the respondents as required by Section 3, Rule 46 of
the 1997 Rules, although the record indicates that a copy thereof was
served upon respondents’ counsel of record, while this is not sanctioned by
the 1997 Rules, this Court has excused it in the past. Third, 0n the
argument that only one of the heirs, Saya Guiambangan Darus, verified the CA
Petition for Certiorari, without proof of authority to file the same obtained from
the other heirs, this is not fatal.