Heirs of Tan v. Pollescas, G.R. No. 145568, Nov.

17, 2005 (Carpio,

ponente)

FACTS:
1. Petitioners Norma Tan, Jeanette Tan, Julieta Tan,
Rommel Tan and Enrique Tan, Jr. (Tan Heirs) are coowners of a coconut farmland (Land) located at Labo,
Ozamis City with an area of 25,780 square meters.
2. Esteban Pollescas (Esteban) was the original tenant of
the Land. Respondent ReynaldaPollescas (Reynalda),
Estebans surviving second spouse, demanded that Tan
recognize her as Estebans successor. Tan did not accede.
Thus, Reynalda filed with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board of Ozamis City (DARABOzamis) a complaint for Annulment of Compromise
Agreement, Quieting of Tenancy Relationship and
damages.
3. DARAB -Ozamis declared Reynalda as the lawful tenant
of the Land.Reynalda failed to deliver to the Tan Heirs 2/3
of the harvests amounting to P3,656.70. The Tan Heirs
demandedReynalda to pay such amount. However,
Reynalda ignored the demand.Subsequently, for
Reynaldas continued failure to deliver their share, the Tan
Heirs filed with the DARAB, Misamis Occidental (DARABMisamis Occidental) an ejectment case.
4. DARAB-Misamis Occidental ruled in favor of the Tan
Heirs. On appeal, DARAB- QC reversed. The CA also
sustained DARAB-QCs decision Hence, appeal.
Issue:
W/N decision was correct- YES

Held:
1. Essentially, decision was correct because the share
agreement was unlawful. Law mandates that not more
than 25% of the average normal harvest shall
constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold. In this
case, the Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to deliver 2/3
of the harvest as lease rental, which clearly exceeded
the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law.
Therefore, the Tan Heirs cannot validly dispossess
Reynalda of the landholding for non-payment of rental
precisely because the lease rental claimed by the Tan
Heirs is unlawful.
2. For the purposes of this class, petitioners counsel
was admonished by the court because he made a
wrong citation, thus:
The case of Garchitorena v. Panganiban which the
Tan Heirs invoked to justify the extinguishment of
leasehold relation does not appear on page 339 of
Volume 8 of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated.
What is printed on such page is the case of Republic v.
Perez with docket number L-16112 and promulgated
on 29 June 1963. For making a wrong citation, the
Court admonishes Atty. Jesus S. Anonat, counsel for
the Tan Heirs, to be more careful when citing
jurisprudence. The Court reminds him of his duty not
to knowingly misquote the text of a decision or
authority lest he be guilty of misleading the Court.

Note:
Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or
the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a
decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a
provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not
been proved.
Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144412,
Nov. 18, 2003 (Carpio)
Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144412,
Nov. 18, 2003 (Carpio)

FACTS:
1. A labor dispute between Allied Banking Corp and and
private respondent Potenciano L. Galanida (accountantmanager, stationed in Cebu). The dispute stemmed when
Galanida refused to be transferred to other bank branches
(Bacolod, Tagbilaran branches)because he did not want
to be separated from his family. He was dismissed by
Allied for violating company rules. Galanida filed a labor
case against bank for illegal dismissal.
2. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Galanida. Labor Arbiter
granted Galanida separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
This was affirmed by NLRC, and CA.
3. In the memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano (counsel
of Galanida), and also quoted in Labor Arbiter and CAs
decision, they all misquoted a previous case by the SC
Dosch v. NLRC

Issue:
W/N Galanida was illegally dismissed- NO

Held:
1. The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and,
worse, the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, both
misquoted the Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v.
NLRC.
2. Labor Arbiter held, in his decision:
While it may be true that the right to transfer or reassign
an employee is an employers exclusive right and the
prerogative of management, such right is not absolute.
The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his
employee is limited by the paramount police power xxx
for the relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual but impressed with public interest. xxx And
neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against
each other.
3. Meanwhile, the memorandum for Galanida filed with
this Court, prepared by Atty. Loreto M. Durano, again
misquoted the Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC, thus:
xxx His [Galanidas] refusal to transfer falls well within the
ruling of the Supreme Court in Helmut Dosch vs. NLRC, et.
al., 123 SCRA 296 (1983) quoted as follows:
xxx

Refusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered

insubordination where employee cited reason for said
refusal, such as that of being away from the family.
2. But in fact, the phrase [r]efusal to obey a transfer
order cannot be considered insubordination where
employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of
being away from the family does not appear anywhere in
decision. Galanidas counsel lifted the erroneous phrase
from
one
of
the
italicized
lines
in
the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court
Reports Annotated (SCRA).
3. The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of
Supreme Court decisions or resolutions is not the work of
the Court, nor does it state this Courts decision. The
syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his
understanding of the decision. The reporter writes the
syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading the
reports. A syllabus is not a part of the courts decision. A
counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully
considered text in the decision of the Court.
4. In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty.
Durano began by quoting from Dosch, but substituted a
portion of the decision with a headnote from the SCRA
syllabus, which they even underscored. In short, they
deliberately made the quote from the SCRA syllabus
appear as the words of the Supreme Court. We admonish
them for what is at the least patent carelessness, if not an
outright attempt to mislead the parties and the courts
taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a
lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
text of a decision or authority. It is the duty of all officers
of the court to cite the rulings and decisions of the
Supreme Court accurately.
5. They are admonished by the court.

On issue of illegal dismissal

Galanida was not illegally dismissed sinceThe constant
transfer of bank officers and personnel with
accounting responsibilities from one branch to
another is a standard practice of Allied Bank, which
has more than a hundred branches throughout the
country. Allied Bank does this primarily for internal
control. It has also been upheld in previous
jurisprudence. The refusal to obey a valid transfer by
employee to be transferred is a valid cause for
dismissal since it is willful disobedience.
Galanida, through counsel, invokes the Courts ruling in
Dosch v. NLRC.Dosch, however, is not applicable to the
present case. Helmut Dosch refused a transfer
consequential to a promotion. We upheld the refusal
because no law compels an employee to accept a
promotion, and because the position Dosch was
supposed to be promoted to did not even exist at that
time. This left as the only basis for the charge of
insubordination a letter from Dosch in which the
Court found not even the slightest hint of defiance,
much less xxx insubordination.
Moreover, the transfer of an employee to an overseas
post, as in the Dosch case, cannot be likened to a
transfer from one city to another within the country,

which is the situation in the present case. The distance

from Cebu City to Bacolod City or from Cebu City to
Tagbilaran City does not exceed the distance from
Baguio City to Laoag City or from Baguio City to
Manila, which the Court considered a reasonable
distance in PT&T v. Laplana.