recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
People of the Philippines vs Jayson Merando Aves G.R. No. 232620. August 05, 2019

People of the Philippines vs Jayson Merando Aves

G.R. No. 232620, August 05, 2019

Marvic Leonen

Unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure will
shroud in doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug
allegedly seized. When there is reasonable doubt, an accused's acquittal
 must ensue.

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of
 Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Jayson
Merando y Aves for violating Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act.

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination[.]

Nevertheless, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 states that noncompliance with the law's requirements may be allowed as long as the arresting officers offer a justifiable ground and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, despite noncompliance, have been properly preserved.
They merely relied on the presumption that unless there was contrary evidence indicating ill motive on their part, they were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.
However, this presumption arises only when no facts exist suggesting that the arresting officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty. It will not be applied when their official act is irregular on its face.

**WHEREFORE**, the April 26, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08123 is **REVERSED and SET ASIDE**. Accused-appellant Jayson Merando y Aves is **ACQUITTED** for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately **RELEASED** from detention unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.

Let
 a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action he has taken
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. Copies shall also be
 furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and
 the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
their information.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Caguioa

**Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa** is the 174th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court replacing the retired Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. Appointed by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III.

## Notes

* Ateneo de Manila University
* Secretary of the Department of Justice
* Chief Presidential Legal Counsel

## *En Banc*

* G.R. No. 216930/G.R. No. 217451/G.R. No. 217752/G.R. No. 218045/G.R. No. 218098/G.R. No. 218123/G.R. No. 218465. October 9, 2018 K-12 program
Anacleto Alden Meneses* Vs. Jung Soon Linda Lee-Meneses G.R. No. 200182. March 13, 2019

Anacleto Alden Meneses\* Vs. Jung Soon Linda Lee-Meneses G.R. No. 200182. March 13, 2019

Caguioa

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65268

Is a spouse who considers money and material needs as the essence of marriage psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations to warrant a declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code?

## Issues

The Petition calls on the Court to determine whether the lower courts erred in dismissing Anacleto's petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of insufficient evidence.

Moreover, Linda's parents struggled through life and made a lot of sacrifices to [attain] financial success. They saw money as the key to success in life and the answer to satisfy one's needs. This has made Linda prioritize the satisfaction she would derive from material things and would do anything to get what [she] wants. On the other hand, Linda's resentment and lack of love and attention from her father has resulted to her demanding and domineering ways towards the opposite sex x x x. All these has (sic) made her display narcissistic and borderline behaviors.

While Dr. Lopez attributes the gravity of Linda's disorder to her alleged unhealthy childhood, none of the informants whom he interviewed claims to have known Linda since childhood. Moreover, neither Marife nor Ronilo appear to have known Linda prior to the marriage in question. This significantly impairs the weight of Dr. Lopez's findings, insofar as they are based on the informants' narration of Linda's childhood events and circumstances which they appear to have no personal knowledge of.

The Court commiserates with Anacleto's plight. The denial of the present Petition may be viewed as a sentence to a lifetime trapped in a "loveless" marriage characterized by failed expectations and lost hopes. Unfortunately, however, marriage recognized in this jurisdiction stands beyond love and personal emotions; it is a matter of law. Thus, in actions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Court is bound to dispense justice not on the basis of its own determination on the existence of love or lack thereof, but on the basis of law and the evidence on record.

## Decisions

**WHEREFORE**, the Petition is hereby **DENIED**. The Decision dated July 19, 2011 and Resolution dated January 12, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95614 are **AFFIRMED**.
G.R. No. 214667. December 3, 2018

**G.R. No. 214667. December 3, 2018** is a decision 2018 made by the Supreme Court.

Lingnam Restaurant Vs. Skills & Talent Employment Pool, Inc. and Jessie Colaste

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/december2018/214667.pdf

Diosdado Peralta

**WHEREFORE**, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 20, 2013 and its Resolution dated September 24, 2014, in CA-G.R. SP No. 129856, reversing and setting aside the Decision of the NLRC dated January 31, 2013 and reinstating and affirming the Decision dated September 26, 2012 of Labor Arbiter Pablo A. Gajardo, Jr., is **AFFIRMED**.
**SO ORDERED.**
Andres Reyes Jr.

**Andres Reyes Jr.** is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1127128878722367489

## Notes

Born on 11 May 1950, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., is the youngest child of the former Minerva Bernal and the late Justice Andres C. Reyes, Sr., former Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Justice Andres, Jr., is a third generation justice in the Reyes family, his grandfather being Alex A. Reyes, Sr., himself a justice of the Court of Appeals, and later of the Supreme Court.

Justice Andres, Jr., has been a green archer from grade school all the way to college, first attending La Salle Green Hills (LSGH) and the De La Salle University (DLSU) thereafter. He continued his tertiary education at St. Mary’s College of California, obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Science in Economics. He took up his law studies at the Ateneo de Manila University, where he became a member of the Fraternal Order of Utopia. In 2002, he earned a Master’s degree in Public Administration from the Philippine Women’s University.

A career judicial officer, Justice Andres, Jr., was a trial judge from 1987 until 1999, when he, following his father and grandfather before him, was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. On 10 February 2010, he was appointed Presiding Justice of the same court. The Reyeses hold the singular distinction of having a Justice in the family for three consecutive generations, including two Presiding Justices of the second highest court in the land.

P.J. Reyes, Jr., as he has come to be known, has been actively involved in the affairs of his beloved *alma mater*, holding various positions in the Elementary Parents’ Auxiliary, the Alumni Association, and the Board of Trustees of LSGH. Prior to attaining senior status in the Court of Appeals, he also taught at the Arellano Law School and the College of Law of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. He is an avid golfer and a health enthusiast to which his youthful flair and energy is attributed.  He had served as examiner for Labor Laws in the 2012 Bar examinations.  He was appointed to the  Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 13, 2017.

## Trivia

* https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1127128878722367489
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/373/
G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017

**G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017** is a decision 2017 made by the Supreme Court.
De Lima

## Case Details

* Senator Leila M. De Lima Vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al.
* G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017
* Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/october2017/229781.pdf
* Dissenting Opinion
	+ Maria Lourdes Sereno
	+ Antionio Carpio
	+ Marvic Leonen
	+ Francis Jardeleza
	+ Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
* Concurring Opinion
	+ Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
	+ Samuel Martires
* Separate Opinion
	+ Diosdado Peralta
* Separate Concurring Opinion
	+ Mariano Del Castillo
	+ Noel Tijam
* Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
	+ Estela Perlas-Bernabe
* Writ of Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante Order

## Issue

From the pleadings and as delineated in this Court's Advisory dated March 10, 2017 and discussed by the parties during the oral arguments, the issues for resolution by this Court are:

Procedural Issues:

1. Whether or not petitioner is excused from compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy of courts considering that the petition should first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
2. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the Information before the trial court renders the instant petition premature.
3. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the present petition, violated the rule against forum shopping given the pendency of the Motion to Quash the Information before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 149097, assailing the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ Panel.

Substantive Issues:

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the assailed Information.
2. Whether or not the respondent gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.
3. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante Order in the interim until the instant petition is resolved or until the trial court rules on the Motion to Quash.

## Info

"Thus, **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."

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, the instant petition for prohibition and *certiorari* is **DISMISSED** for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165.
Rosmari Carandang

**Rosmari Carandang** is a Justice of the Supreme Court. She was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte as an Associate Justice.

## Notes

Justice Rosmari D. Carandang was born in Ilog, Taal, Batangas, and a daughter of two public school teachers, Sixto and Loreto Carandang. She is a consistent valedictorian from her grade school days at San Luis Elementary School to fourth year high school at Batangas West High School. A college scholar for four semesters, she obtained her Bachelor of Arts Major in Political Science at the University of the Philippines. Also from the same university, she obtained her Bachelor of Laws graduating Salutatorian of the class and Cum Laude in 1975. She garnered 9th place in the 1975 Bar examinations.

Before she joined the Judiciary, Justice Carandang was connected with private financial and government institutions.

In December 1993, she was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, serving also as one of its Vice-Executive Judges. She was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals in March 2003, serving the Court for over 15 years until her appointment to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

* vice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro
* University of the Philippines

## SC PIO

* SC Justice Rosmari D. Carandang attends her first flag ceremony at the SC grounds in Faura, Manila. She says her work in the Court will be her “offering to God, [my] tithe to him.”
* https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1082104697991778304
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2265. September 21, 2011

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2265. September 21, 2011

Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo Vs. Judge Edwin G. Larida, et al.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/RTJ-11-2265.htm

## Overview

Complainants charge of gross ignorance of the law against respondents remains unfounded and unsubstantiated. The evidence which complainant submitted, instead of helping his cause, showed that it was he who was stubbornly remiss in his duties to his client and to the court, as well. The evidence likewise showed that contrary to complainants accusation, respondents in fact strictly complied with applicable laws, rules, and jurisprudence pertaining to issuance of writs of possession or allowance of extrajudicial foreclosure. Verily, complainant has, among others, unjustly inconvenienced and mentally tortured respondents by dragging them into this unnecessary battle. Precious time, energy and expense were wasted when the same could have been beneficially used for some other lawful purpose beneficial to the interest of public service.

## Decision

WHEREFORE, as recommended by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the complaint against respondents Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz, all of Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, for gross ignorance of the law is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.Complainant Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo is hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be subjected to disciplinary action for filing a frivolous and baseless complaint against the respondent judiciary personnel, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
Theodore Te

Theodore Te

## SC PIO Chief

Te resigns from Supreme Court PIO

“I respectfully believe that I would be of greater value to the judiciary and the Court in the academic world at this time"

## Sources

https://twitter.com/tedte?lang=en

https://twitter.com/TedTe/status/994790376459395072

https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/2018/news/09/03/20180903-ted-te.jpg

https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/09/03/sc-spokesman-theodore-te-resigns/

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/666363/supreme-court-spokesman-theodore-te-resigns/story/

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/03/18/supreme-court-spokesman-theodore-te-quits
List of Previous Justices

List of Previous Justices of the Supreme Court.

## List of Previous Chief Justices

1. Lucas Bersamin
2. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
3. Maria Lourdes Sereno (ousted by Quo Warranto)
4. Renato Corona (Impeachment)

## List of Previous Associate Justices

1. Mariano Del Castillo
2. Noel Tijam (JBC Member)
3. Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
4. Samuel Martires (Ombudsman)
5. Maria Lourdes Sereno (ousted by Quo Warranto)
6. Leonardo Quisumbing
Cybercrime Warrants

**Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (AM No. 17-11-03-SC)** is a Supreme Court Rule effective August 15, 2018 after publication in two newspapers of general circulation.

## Source

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/17-11-03-SC.pdf

https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1032546508359385088

## Trivia

https://digitalfilipino.com/introduction-cybercrime-prevention-act-republic-act-10175/
Spouses Danilo and Clarita German Vs. Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo and Helen S. Mariano, Deceased, Substituted By Her Heirs Namely, Jose Mario S. Mariano, Ma. Catalina Safira S. Mariano, et al. G.R. No. 210845. January 22, 2020

Spouses Danilo and Clarita German Vs. Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo and Helen S. Mariano, Deceased, Substituted By Her Heirs Namely, Jose Mario S. Mariano, Ma. Catalina Safira S. Mariano, et al. G.R. No. 210845. January 22, 2020

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66145

Leonen

When circumstances are present that should prompt a potential buyer of registered real property to be on guard, it is expected that they inquire first into the status of the property and not merely rely on the face of the certificate of title.

## Issues

ARTICLE 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession there o f in good faith, if it should be movable property.  Should it be immovable property , the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

If indeed the registered owner Bautista has sold the lot in question to defendants Santuyo, why should defendant Helen sign a letter of guarantee (Exh. "2") before Bautista signed the deed of sale. Defendant Editha claimed that Bautista allegedly told her that the lot was previously mortgaged to him (Bautista) by Jose Mariano. If it was the reason then why was it not told to defendant Helen? Why would also defendant Helen sign a letter of guarantee without any question? Or probably, this letter of guarantee gives relevance to the receipt (Exh. "4") mentioning about the "lot sold to her by Jose Mariano"? These foregoing documents give semblance on the verified answer of Francisco Bautista (Exh. "H") to the third party compliant in the case docketed as Civil case No. 92-2620 before Branch 27 of RTC Naga City, for the "Recovery of Ownership with Damages" filed by defendants Santuyo as against the herein plaintiffs German. In the said pleading , the Bautistas claimed that the sale between them and the Santuyos is fictitious since the former did not receive any payment or consideration thereon.

Due to respondents' lack of good faith, they cannot rely on the
indefeasibility of their Transfer Certificate of Title. Thus, in
accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code, it is the first buyer,
namely the Mariano Spouses, who had a better right of ownership, and no
ownership could pass on to the respondents Santuyo Spouses as a result.

## Decisions

 **WHEREFORE,**  the Petition for. Review is **GRANTED.**  The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. CV. No. 93628 are **REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.** The January 30, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 61 in Civil Case No. 2001-0200 is **REINSTATED.**
G.R. No. 213847. July 12, 2016

G.R. No. 213847. July 12, 2016 is a decisiondecision 2016 by the Supreme Court.

## Case Details

* Juan Ponce Enrile Vs. Sandiganbayan, and People of the Philippines
* G.R. No. 213847. July 12, 2016
* Justice Lucas Bersamin
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/213847.pdf
* Separate Concurring Opinion
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/213847\_brion.pdf
* Dissenting Opinion
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/213847\_leonen.pdf

## Issue

A. Before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, Enrile is bailable as a matter of right. Enrile may be deemed to fall within the exception only upon concurrence of two (2) circumstances: (i) where the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, and (ii) when evidence of guilt is strong.

B. The prosecution failed to show clearly and conclusively that Enrile, if ever he would be convicted, is punishable by reclusion perpetua; hence, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

C. The prosecution failed to show clearly and conclusively that evidence of Enrile’s guilt (if ever) is strong; hence, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

D. At any rate, Enrile may be bailable as he is not a flight risk.

## Info

1. Bail protects the right of the accused todue process and to be presumed innocent
2. Bail may be granted as amatter of right or of discretion
3. Admission to bail in offenses punishedby death, or life imprisonment, or reclusionperpetua is subject to judicial discretion
4. Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail

## Decision

* WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

## Trivia

* If convicted persons (i.e., persons whose guilt have been proven with moral certainty) are allowed to be released on account of their old age and health, then there is no reason why a mere accused could not be released on bail based on the same grounds.
* After his release solely on the basis of his frail health, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile immediately reported for work at the Senate.
Decisions 2014

List of SC Decisions by the Supreme Courtof the Philippines on 2014.

## Decisions

1. January
	* xxx
2. February
	* Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines Vs. Asia Paces Corporation, Paces Industrial Corporation, Nicolas C. Balderrama, et al. G.R. No.187403. February 12, 2014 Surety
3. March
	* xxx
4. April
	* xxx
5. May
	* xxx
6. June
	* xxx
7. July
	* xxx
8. August
	* xxx
9. September
	* xxx
10. October
	* xxx
11. November
	* xxx
12. December
	* xxx
G.R. No. 234156. January 7, 2019

G.R. No. 234156. January 7, 2019 is a decisions 2019 of the Supreme Court.

People of the Philippines Vs. Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, et al.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2019/january2019/234156.pdf

Diosdado Peralta

**WHEREFORE**, premises considered, the Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08121 dismissing appellants' appeal and affirming the Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City is **REVERSED AND SET ASIDE**. Appellants Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo Barangot y Pilais, Mark Angelo Manalastas y Gapasin are **ACQUITTED** for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are **ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED** from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prisons, for immediate implementation. Said Director and Superintendent are **ORDERED** to **REPORT** to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Decision the action he/she has taken.

**SO ORDERED.**
G.R. No. 232325. April 10, 2019

**G.R. No. 232325. April 10, 2019** is a decisions 2019 made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Domingo Crebello Vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr.

Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin

## Decision

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148977 on January 16, 2017; DECLARES and FINDS respondent TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR. guilty of NEPOTISM (in violation of Section 59, in relation to Section 67, of Presidential Decree No. 807, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and Section 49, in relation to Section 55, of Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Civil Service Law); IMPOSES on respondent TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, .JR. the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual  disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations; and ORDERS him to pay the costs of suit.

## Trivia

* \*nepotism
* \*cost of suit
G.R. No. 197146. December 6, 2016

**G.R. No. 197146. December 6, 2016** is a decision 2016 made by the Supreme Court.

## Case Details

* Hon. Michael L. Rama, et al. Vs. Hon. Gilbert P. Moises, et al.
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/december2016/197146.pdf
* G.R. No. 197146. December 6, 2016
* Justice Lucas Bersamin
* Dissenting Opinion
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/december2016/197146\_decastro.pdf
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/december2016/197146\_brion.pdf
* Concurring Opinion
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/december2016/197146\_leonen.pdf

## Issues

* THE RESPONDENT COURT ABDICATED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY IN REFUSING TO DELVE ON THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
* THE JUDGMENT IS VOID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE OF CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS APPARENT BY A MERE READING OF THE DECREE.
* THE JUDGMENT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

## Info

* Yu's expiration of term did not render case moot and academic
* RTC explained its holding of the assailed provision as valid and constitutional but it thereby erred nonetheless
* Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is already superseded
* Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, we **GRANT** the petition for *certiorari*; **ANNUL** and **SET ASIDE** the decision rendered in Civil Case No. CEB-34459 on November 16, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in Cebu City; and **DECLARE** as **UNCONSTITUTIONAL** Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 to the extent that it applies to highly urbanized cities like the City of Cebu and to component cities with charters expressly providing for their voters not to be eligible to vote for the officials of the provinces to which they belong for being in violation of the express policy of the 1987 Constitution on local autonomy, the *1991 Local Government Code* and subsequent statutory enactments, and for being also in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

**ACCORDINGLY**, the Mayor of the the City of Cebu is declared to be the appointing authority of the Members of the Board of Directors of the Metro Cebu Water District.

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

**SO ORDERED.**
Digna Consumido vs Ramon Saura, Jr. and Fatima Saura G.R. NO. 166875, July 31, 2007

Digna Consumido vs Ramon Saura, Jr. and Fatima Saura G.R. NO. 166875, July 31, 2007 is a decisions 2007 of the Supreme Court.

Tinga

## Issues

Hence, the instant petition ascribing the following errors to the Court of Appeals:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR OF FACT AND LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST TO FILE THE EJECTMENT SUIT, AS SUCH RULING IS BASED ON PURE CONJECTURES AND PRESUMPTIONS.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO EJECT PETITIONER HAVING ESTABLISHED A BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION.

* After summary proceedings, the MeTC rendered a decision on 19 April 2002 dismissing the ejectment suit. The MeTC found that the ownership of the leased premises had been the subject of a pending litigation between respondent Ramon Saura, Jr. on one hand and SREDC, VGFC, and the other heirs of the late Ramon Saura, Sr. on the other. It also found that SREDC, as successor-in-interest of VGFC, had previously instituted an ejectment suit against petitioner and other lessees occupying the other units but the same had been dismissed with finality pending the determination of ownership of the leased premises. Based on the foregoing and the findings that VGFC was the lessor and respondents had acted merely as administrators and/or representatives of VGFC upon the execution of the lease agreements, the MeTC declared respondents as not the real parties-in-interest.
* Respondents were able to establish only as far as accepting the rental payments from petitioner.
* Respondents cannot assert that they did not know for a fact that they were never parties to the lease agreement. The fact that petitioner initially thought respondents were the owners of the leased premises does not put her in estoppel because respondents were expected to know in what capacity they accepted the payments.

## Decision

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and the Decision dated 13 September 2004 and Resolution dated 24 January 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75285 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28 of Manila in Civil Case No. 170458 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.
Decisions 2019

List of SC Decisions by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on 2019.

## Decisions

1. January
	* G.R. No. 234156. January 7, 2019 Section 21 Illegal Drugs Acquittal
	* People of the Philippines Vs. Nancy Lasaca Ramirez a.k.a. "Zoy" or "Soy" G.R. No. 217978. January 30, 2019 Human Trafficking
2. February
	* xxx
3. March
	* G.R. No. 225744. March 6, 2019 Acquittal on Illegal Drugs
	* G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019 *En Banc*
	* Anacleto Alden Meneses\* Vs. Jung Soon Linda Lee-Meneses G.R. No. 200182. March 13, 2019 Loveless Marriage
4. April
	* G.R. No. 225511. March 20, 2019 Information must contain specific allegation
	* G.R. No. 232325. April 10, 2019 Nepotism
5. May
	* G.R. No. 227670. May 3, 2019 DOE revoked the ERC
6. June
	* xxx
7. July
	* xxx
8. August
	* People of the Philippines vs Jayson Merando Aves G.R. No. 232620. August 05, 2019
9. September
	* xxx
10. October
	* Ago Realty & Development Corporation (ARDC), Emmanuel F. Ago and Corazon Castañeda-Ago Vs. Dr. Angelita F. Ago, Teresita Paloma-Apin, and Maribel Amaro G.R. No. 210906/G.R. No. 211203. October 16, 2019 Derivative Suit
	* Adelfa Properties, Inc. Vs. Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza A.C. No. 8608. October 16, 2019 Adelfa TV Interview
11. November
	* Fluor Daniel, Inc. – Philipppines Vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. G.R. No. 212895. November 27, 2019 Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari
12. December
	* xxx
List of SC Decisions

List of Supreme Court Decisions at their website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/

## Categories

* OCA
* OFW
* *En Banc* Decisions
* Special Decisions

## Decisions 2010-2019

* Decisions 2019
* Decisions 2018
* Decisions 2017
* Decisions 2016
* Decisions 2015
* Decisions 2014
* Decisions 2013
* Decisions 2012
* Decisions 2011
* Decisions 2010

## Decisions 2000-2009

* Decisions 2000
* Decisions 2001
* Decisions 2002
* Decisions 2003
* Decisions 2004
* Decisions 2005
* Decisions 2006
* Decisions 2007
* Decisions 2008
* Decisions 2009

## Decisions 1990-1999

* Decisions 1990
* Decisions 1991
* Decisions 1992
* Decisions 1993
* Decisions 1994
* Decisions 1995
* Decisions 1996
* Decisions 1997
* Decisions 1998
* Decisions 1999
G.R. No. 199537. February 10, 2016

**G.R. No. 199537. February 10, 2016** is part of the list of decisions made by the Supreme Court.

## Case Details

* Republic of the Philippines Vs. Andrea Tan
* G.R. No. 199537. February 10, 2016
* Justice Arturo Brion
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/199537.pdf
* Concurring Opinion
	+ Marvic Leonen

## Issue

* (1) that the CA misapplied the doctrine in *Malabanan*; and
* (2) that the CENRO certification and tax declarations presented were

insufficient to prove that the subject lot was no longer intended for public use.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, we hereby **GRANT** the petition. The May 29, 2009 decision and October 18, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in **CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00702** are **REVERSED** and **SET ASIDE**. The respondent's application for Land Registration is **DENIED** for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
En Banc

**Supreme Court of the Philippines *En Banc*** are decisions by all members (before the entire bench) of the Supreme Court Justices.

Decisions (and abstracts of decisions) on cases heard by all the Justices of the Supreme Court. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/section/judicial/supreme-court/en-banc/

## List

* Supreme Court Rules
* List of SC Decisions

## List of Supreme Court *En Banc* Decisions

* Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz/Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Judge Ofelia M.D. Artuz, Municiapl Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City, Iloilo A.C. No. 7253/A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717. February 18, 2020 Disbarment
* Re: News Report of Mr. Jomar Canlas in the Manila Times Issue of 8 March 2016 A. M. No. 16-03-10-SC. October 19, 2019 News Report Bribe
* Maynilad Water Services, Inc. Vs. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), et al. G.R. No. 202897/G.R. No. 206823/G.R. No. 207969. August 6, 2019 Clean Water Act
* G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019 GIOS-SAMAR
* G.R. No. 170867/G.R. No. 185941. December 4, 2018 Malampaya
* G.R. No. 216930/G.R. No. 217451/G.R. No. 217752/G.R. No. 218045/G.R. No. 218098/G.R. No. 218123/G.R. No. 218465. October 9, 2018 K-12 program
* People of the Philippines vs Rolando Solar Dumbrique G.R. No. 225595. August 06, 2019 Murder
* Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014 Cybercrime Law
* Emilio A. Gonzales III vs Office of the President of the Philippines et al. G.R. No. 196231. September 4, 2012 Ombudsman Constitutionality

## Trivia

* En Banc as of March 2019 https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1112518509144113152
Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse

*"Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse is one of my favorite games on the NES, but it's also one of the hardest games I own on the NES. Visually it looks amazing, and the music is some of the best music you can find on the NES. However, the game is incredibly hard! The controls aren't very responsive, and some enemy/trap placements are extremely unfair. With that said though, the game is still generally fun to play, and beating it makes you feel like you're on top of the world."*

* Logo
* Logo 2
* Box Art

### Release Date

JP: December, 1989
NA: September, 1990
EU: December, 1992

### Genre(s)

Action,
Adventure,
2D Platformer

### Value

Price Charting
Static Value:
$35 Cart
$21 Instruction Manual
$38 Box
$617 Sealed

## YouTube Information

* Thumbnail
* Title Card

### Score

 Graphics
 Sound
 Control
 Fun Factor

## External Links

Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse at GameFAQs
Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines Vs. Asia Paces Corporation, Paces Industrial Corporation, Nicolas C. Balderrama, et al. G.R. No.187403. February 12, 2014

Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (Formerly Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation) Vs. Asia Paces Corporation, Paces Industrial Corporation, Nicolas C. Balderrama, Siddcor Insurance Corporation (Now Mega Pacific Insurance Corporation), Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance Inc., Paramount Insurance Corporation, and Fortune Life and General Insurance Company G.R. No.187403. February 12, 2014

Estela Perlas-Bernabe

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56625

## Issues

The essential issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the bonding companies’ liabilities to TIDCORP under the Surety Bonds have been extinguished by the payment extensions granted by Banque Indosuez and PCI Capital to TIDCORP under the Restructuring Agreement.

* A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the solvency of the debtor.
* A guarantor, on the other hand, does not contract that the principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so. In other words, a surety undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at once if the principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor.
* The theory behind Article 2079 is that an extension of time given to the principal debtor by the creditor without the surety’s consent would deprive the surety of his right to pay the creditor and to be immediately subrogated to the creditor’s remedies against the principal debtor upon the maturity date.

## Decisions

**WHEREFORE**, the petition is **GRANTED**. The Decision dated April30, 2008 and Resolution dated March 27,2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86558 are **MODIFIED**
 in that respondents Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc., Mega
 Pacific Insurance Corporation, Fortune Life and General Insurance
Company are **ORDERED** to fulfill their respective obligations to
petitioner Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the
Philippines (TIDCORP) under the Surety Bonds subject of this case,
discounting the obligations arising from the Surety Bonds issued by
Paramount Insurance Corporation and covered by its Compromise Agreement
with TIDCORP.
G.R. No. 227670. May 3, 2019

G.R. No. 227670. May 3, 2019

Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. (ABP) Vs. Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3601/

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The first paragraph of Section4 of Energy Regulatory Commission Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015 (CSP Guidelines),and Energy Regulatory Commission Resolution No. 1, Series of 2016 (ERC Clarificatory Resolution), are hereby declared VOID ab initio. Consequently, all Power Supply Agreement applications submitted by Distribution Utilities to the Energy Regulatory Commission on or after 30 June 2015 shall comply with the Competitive Selection Process in accordance with Department of Energy Circular No. DC2018-02-0003 (2018DOE Circular)and its Annex "A." Upon compliance with the Competitive Selection Process,the power purchase cost resulting from such compliance shall retroact to the date of effectivity of the complying Power Supply Agreement, but in no case earlier than30 June 2015, for purposes of passing on the power purchase cost to consumers.

## Separate Concurring Opinion

* Estela Perlas-Bernabe
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3603/

## Dissenting Oppinion

* Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3605/
* Andres Reyes Jr.
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3609/
Roberto Brillante Vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October 19, 2004

Roberto Brillante Vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October 19, 2004

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46218

Tinga

## Issues

As a journalist and as a candidate for public office, Brillante should have known that it is necessary to further verify the truth or at least the reliability of the intelligence reports before making them public. His hasty publication thereof negates the existence of good faith and justifiable motives.

In the cases at bar, although the open letter was primarily addressed to then President Aquino, the communication thereof was not limited to her alone. It was also published in several newspapers of general circulation and was thus made known to the general public.

In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualifiedly privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.

However, since the open letter and the statements uttered by Brillante
during the January 7, 1988 press conference are defamatory and do not
qualify as conditionally privileged communication, malice is presumed
and need not be proven separately from the existence of the defamatory
statement.

With respect to the third issue, the Court agrees with the appellate
court that Brillante’s right to equal protection of the laws was not
violated when he was convicted of libel while his co-accused were
acquitted.

## Decisions

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitions are GRANTED in part.

The Decision of
 the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14475 is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages to private complainant Dr.
Nemesio Prudente in Criminal Cases No. 89-69614, 89-69615, 89-69616 is
reduced to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The Decision of
 the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 15174 is likewise AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages to private complainants
 Atty. Jejomar Binay and Francisco Baloloy is reduced to Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in Criminal Cases No. 88-1410, 88-1411,
88-1412 and 89-721, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) in
Criminal Case No. 88-3060, respectively.
Gulf Resorts, Inc. Vs. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation G.R. No. 156167. May 16, 2005

Gulf Resorts, Inc. Vs. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation G.R. No. 156167. May 16, 2005

Puno

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48862

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant is ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P386,000.00) representing damage to the two (2) swimming pools, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Complaint until defendant’s obligation to plaintiff is fully paid.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, both appeals are hereby DISMISSED and judgment of the Trial Court hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

## Issues

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT UNDER RESPONDENT’S INSURANCE POLICY NO. 31944, ONLY THE TWO (2) SWIMMING POOLS, RATHER THAN ALL THE PROPERTIES COVERED THEREUNDER, ARE INSURED AGAINST THE RISK OF EARTHQUAKE SHOCK.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DENIED PETITIONER’S PRAYER FOR DAMAGES WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE CLAIMED, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION.

Petitioner also cited and relies on the attachment of the phrase “Subject to: Other Insurance Clause, Typhoon Endorsement, Earthquake Shock Endorsement, Extended Coverage Endorsement, FEA Warranty & Annual Payment Agreement on Long Term Policies” to the insurance policy as proof of the intent of the parties to extend the coverage for earthquake shock. However, this phrase is merely an enumeration of the descriptive titles of the riders, clauses, warranties or endorsements to which the policy is subject, as required under Section 50, paragraph 2 of the Insurance Code.

A contract of adhesion is one wherein a party, usually a corporation, prepares the stipulations in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. Through the years, the courts have held that in these type of contracts, the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker party's participation being reduced to the alternative to take it or leave it. Thus, these contracts are viewed as traps for the weaker party whom the courts of justice must protect.

We cannot apply the general rule on contracts of adhesion to the case at bar. Petitioner cannot claim it did not know the provisions of the policy. From the inception of the policy, petitioner had required the respondent to copy verbatim the provisions and terms of its latest insurance policy from AHAC-AIU.

Respondent, in compliance with the condition set by the petitioner, copied AIU Policy No. 206-4568061-9 in drafting its Insurance Policy No. 31944. It is true that there was variance in some terms, specifically in the replacement cost endorsement, but the principal provisions of the policy remained essentially similar to AHAC-AIU’s policy. Consequently, we cannot apply the "fine print" or "contract of adhesion" rule in this case as the parties’ intent to limit the coverage of the policy to the two swimming pools only is not ambiguous

## Decisions

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The petition for certiorari is dismissed. No costs.
Maria Lourdes Sereno

**Maria Lourdes Sereno** is the de facto Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. She was ousted with Quo Warranto.

## Controversy

* Impeachment
* Quo Warranto
* G.R. No. 237428. May 11, 2018
* Show Cause order for Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

## Trivia

Sereno sits with former CJ Hilario Davide, Jr. and Artemio Panganiban at the JBC's 30th Anniversary. https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/939045621004099585
Jose Reyes Jr.

**Jose Reyes Jr.** is a Justice of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte.

## Notes

Hailing
from Tacloban City, Leyte, Justice Jose Calayag Reyes, Jr. was appointed on
August 9, 2018 as the 179th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Justice
Reyes is a graduate of AB Political Science and Bachelor of Laws, both in San
Beda College, in 1970 and 1977, respectively.

Even
before becoming a member of the bar, Justice Reyes already embarked in a career
path in the judiciary when he became a technical assistant to then Chief
Justice Felix V. Makasiar for seven (7) years, beginning in 1978.  Upon Justice Makasiar’s retirement, Justice
Reyes transferred to the Office of the Chief Attorney as a Court Attorney III
until he was appointed as Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Pasig, where he served for four (4) years.
Later on, he became a Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of San
Mateo, Rizal for twelve (12) years from 1991 to 2003, where he also served as
Executive Judge for eight (8) years and a Special Court Judge to try and decide
heinous crimes for seven (7) years.  In
2003, he was appointed as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, where
he served for fifteen (15) years.  In
2015 up until his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Reyes served as
Chairman of the appellate court’s Fourth (4th) Division.

Justice
Reyes is also a pillar in the academe, having been a professor at the College
of Business and Economics in De La Salle University for four (4) decades
now.  De La Salle University awarded him
as the Most Outstanding Part-Time Faculty for School Year 2001-2002.  He was also given the Juan Medrano Service
Award for dedicated service in the mission of Christian Education and long-term
contribution as a La Sallian co-worker and partner.  He is also a treasured Professorial Lecturer
II of the Philippine Judicial Academy, Remedial Law Department, from January
2008 up to present.

His
professional career did not prevent him from being equally active in church and
community service.  He is an active
Eucharistic Minister of Villa San Miguel Chapel in Mandaluyong City, a Team
Leader of the Christian Life Program of Couples for Christ in the Court of
Appeals, a Christian Life Program Speaker in courts and government offices
under the Moral Recovery Program of the government, a Board Member of the
Couples for Christ St. Thomas More and Associates Ministry that advocates good
governance and good citizenship, an Alumnus of the John Haggai Institute,
Mid-Pacific Center, Kihei, Hawaii, United States of America that conducts
evangelization training for Christian leaders, and a Luzon North Deputy and
Supreme Director of the Knights of Columbus.

## SC Justice

* Reyes is Duterte’s fifth appointee to the High Court
* vice Presbitero Velasco Jr.

## Profile

* San Beda
* Regional Trial Court (Rizal)
* Metropolitan Trial Court (Pasig)

## Trivia

* http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1044452
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/377/
G.R. No. 197519. November 8, 2017

**G.R. No. 197519. November 8, 2017** is a Decision 2017 by the Supreme Court.

xxx

## Case Details

* Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership Vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* G.R. No. 197519. November 8, 2017
* Justice xxx
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/november2017/197519.pdf
* xxx