You are on page 1of 8

Durisol Phils vs CA

DBP filed before the CFI of Valenzuela, Bulacan, a petition for surrender of owner’s duplicate
titles covering foreclosed properties. Petitioner filed its answer, raising the defenses that
the petition fails to state a cause of action and that DBP’s action was barred by laches or
prescription.

The TC rendered summary judgement ordering petitioner to surrender the 7 certificates of


title within 5 days. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. So, he filed
an appeal with IAC. IAC rendered a decision ordering the case be remanded to the Lower
Court on the ground that it was improper for the Trial Court to render a summary judgement
because there were genuine issues involved. So, the issue was brought back to the lower
court.

On the date of the hearing in the lower court, neither the petitioner nor his counsel
appeared, thus, the respondent DBP presented evidence ex-parte. Upon such evidence, the
court issued a resolution ordering the petitioner to surrender the 7 certificate of titles within
5 days.

After the passage of 16 days, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied by the court since the same was filed out of time. The respondent filed a motion for
execution and was granted.

More than 4 years after this, the petitioner file a petition to annul the Lower Courts decision
based on lack of jurisdiction with IAC. The same was dismissed. Hence, this petition.

WON petitioner may annul the judgement of the lower court based on lack of jurisdiction?

NO, the court denied the petition to annul judgment. The judgement rendered by TC
for alleged lack of jurisdiction cannot be considered void where the party who has the right
to challenge it failed to do so at the first instance. In the case at bar, petitioner did not raise
the defense of lack of jurisdiction in its answer to respondent DBP’s petition for surrender of
owner’s duplicate certificate. Neither did petitioner file any motion to dismiss on this ground.

Furthermore, petitioner actively participated in the proceedings from the lower court
up to the IAC and did not raise the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It is already too late since
the judgment had already attained finality, considering that more than four years have
elapsed without any action from petitioner.
Marmo vs Anacay

Respondent Moises Anacay filed for the Annulment of Sale, Recovery of Title with
damages against petitioners spouses Marmo. The property sought to be recovered was co-
owned by Moises and his wife Gloria Anacay, now deceased.

In the Answer of the petitioner Josephine, she averred that the respondent’s children
as co-owners of subject property should be included as plaintiffs because they are
indispensible parties, being heirs of their mother’s estate.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to include children as


indispensible parties. The RTC denied her petition and considered her petition as means for
delaying the proceeding.

Thus, the petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA but the
petition was dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was filed but also denied.

Hence, this petition.

WON the petitioner may file a petition for certiorari for a denial of a motion to dismiss?

NO she may not. Under Sec 1, Rule 41 an appeal may be taken only form a
judgement or final order that completely disposes of the case, or a matter therein when
declared by the Rules to be appealable. It explicitly states as well that no appeal may be
taken from an interlocutory order.

An order denying a Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory because it does not finally


dispose of a case. Only when the court issues an order outside or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief will certiorari be considered an appropriate remedy.
Tres Reyes vs Maxim Tea House

Petitioner is a driver of Maxims teahouse, tasked with fetching employees. In the wee
hours of the morning, he was driving employees to the Maxim teahouse when, while moving
at a speed of 50-60 kph, he noticed that a 10-wheeler was going his way. Petitioner tried to
avoid collision but nonetheless, the van was struck by the truck. Physical injuries were
sustained by the employees.

The petitioner was terminated and by reason of such, filed a complaint against the
respondent for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.

The labor arbiter found the petitioner was grossly negligent in failing to avoid the
collision and thus was legally dismissed.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission. The NLRC opted to
treat the petition as an appeal. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and
found that there was no negligence on the petitioner’s part.

The Respondent moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied.

Then, the respondent decided to file a special civil action for certiorari with the CA.
The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
regarding the motion for reconsideration that the latter treated as an appeal.

Hence, this petition.

WON There was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in treating as an appeal
the motion for reconsideration of Mr. Tres Reyes?

NO. the motion for reconsideration can be treated as an appeal. Under Sec 3, Rule VI of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a decision or order is prohibited.
HOWEVER, under the same rule, it likewise allows that motion for reconsideration shall be
treated as an appeal provided it meets all the requirements of an appeal.

In this case, the Court found that the petitioners declaration in his motion for
consideration that stated he received a copy of the Labor Arbiters decision is more than
sufficient compliance with the “statement of the material date” requirement. This
statement of material date refers to the statement of the date when the appellant received
the appealed decision.
People vs Corpuz

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54, in Criminal Case No. 99-176637 found
appellant Elizabeth Corpuz guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale constituting economic
sabotage under Sec. 6 (l) and (m) in relation to Sec. 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042, "Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of l995,

Appellant contends that she is not liable for the foregoing illegal recruitment
activities considering that she was merely an employee having no control over the
recruitment business of the Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation and
she had no knowledge that the agency’s license was suspended by the POEA.

The trial court convicted appellant based on its findings that despite the suspension
of the agency’s license, appellant still convinced the applicants to give their money with the
promise to land a job abroad. Moreover, as the registered secretary of the agency she had
management control of the recruitment business.

Whether or not the ruling of the lower court was correct?

No, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant. “ It is axiomatic that findings of facts of
the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of witnesses and probative weight
thereof and its conclusions culled from said findings are accorded by this Court great
respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in
observing and monitoring at close range, the conduct, deportment and demeanor of the
witnesses as they testify before the trial court. However, this principle does not apply if the
trial court ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of
substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.The exception obtains
in this case.”

In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the


prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense
with which he is charged. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, i.e., "he who asserts,
not he who denies, must prove.”The conviction of appellant must rest not on the weakness
of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove
appellant’s active participation in the illegal recruitment activities of the agency. As already
established, appellant received the processing fees of the private complainants for and in
behalf of Mrs. Reyes who ordered her to receive the same.
QBE insurance vs rabello

The instant case is an administrative case against the respondent Rabello, a sheriff
dragged Q.B.E. Insurance (Phils.), Inc. into the a civil case by falsely reporting to the court
that defendant Rizal Surety and Insurance Company (Rizal Surety, for brevity) had changed
its corporate name to Q.B.E. Insurance.

The respondent sheriff had directed a writ of execution against Rizal Surety under its
alleged new name, QBI. Then a year after, the respondent served upon the complainants a
notice of immediate payment and then garnished its bank accounts despite the explanations
of the inhouse counsel that the identity of QBI was not that of Rizal Surety.

Respondent contended that his report/ex-parte manifestation that Rizal Surety


changed its name to QBE was made in good faith as it was based on what he saw in the
office of Rizal Surety and the information relayed to him by the employees there.

The complainant asked the court to lift the garnishment by filing an Urgent Motion to
Lift on May 2002. And in the subsequent year, 11 April 2003, QBE filed an Affidavit of Third-
Party Claim anchored on the same arguments earlier raised in its Urgent Motion to Lift.

Since QBE had earlier asked the court to lift the garnishment for the very same
reasons advanced in the third-party claim, respondent stated that he had no option but to
await the resolution of the court, otherwise he would have pre-empted the ruling of the
court on the matter. Further, respondent stressed that he was justified in not releasing the
levied accounts.

WON the respondent sheriff can be held responsible for proceeding with the writ of
execution without determining if the properties being garnished actually belonged to the
judgement obligor? And if he can be liable for not releasing the accounts in his custody
despite the demands of the complainants?

Yes, he can. The rule is that when a writ of execution is placed in the hands of a
sheriff it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it
pursuant to its mandate.

As officers of the Court, however, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are bound to discharge
their duties with utmost care and diligence, particularly in implementing the orders of the
court, for if they err, they will affect the efficacy of the process by which justice is
administered. Respondent ought to be aware that execution could only be issued against a
party and not against one who was not accorded his day in court and it was his bounden
duty to see to it that the writ of execution would be implemented only upon properties
unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. Property belonging to third persons
cannot thus be levied upon.

However, respondent could not be entirely faulted for his failure to immediately
release and/or discharge the garnished bank accounts of the complainant. Instead of
immediately filing a third-party claim, QBE filed an Urgent Motion to Lift and Notice of
Garnishment. And only after that did he file an affidavit of Thirdparty claim. Under Section
16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the moment a third party claim is filed, the
sheriff is not bound to keep the property levied upon, unless the creditor insists that it
should be continued, which may be done if such creditor files a bond sufficient to indemnify
the sheriff for whatever damages he may be held liable should the third party succeed in
vindicating his title in a proper action brought separately for the purpose. If the third-party
claim is sufficient, the sheriff upon receiving it is not bound to proceed with the levy of the
property, unless he is given by the judgment creditor or his agent an indemnity bond against
the claim.

You might also like