NOVEMBER 2015

SCRA CASE TITLE SUBJECTS

VOLUME
774 TOLENTINO vs. MILLADO AND SIBAYAN, A.C. No. Legal Ethics
10737, November 09, 2015
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ROGER D. Remedial Law
COREA, A.M. No. P-11-2992 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8- Administrative Law
156-RTC), November 09, 2015
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND vs. CO, G.R. No Remedial Law
171172, November 9, 2015
PUNONG BAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A) vs. LEPON, G.R. Remedial Law
No. 174115, November 9, 2015
BENEDICTO-MUOZ vs. CACHO-OLIVARES, G.R. No. Remedial Law
179129, November 9, 2015 Mercantile Law
MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. Remedial Law
185058, November 9, 2015 Legal Ethics
(Professional Regulation)
ETOM, JR. vs. AROMA LODGING HOUSE, G.R. No. Labor Law
192955, November 9, 2015
PEOPLE vs. DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, Criminal Law
2015 Remedial Law
INOCENCIO vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 205760, November Remedial Law
9, 2015
PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, Remedial Law
2015
LEONES VDA. DE MILLER vs. MIRANDA, A.C. No. 8507, Remedial Law
November 10, 2015 Legal Ethics
VALLEY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. vs. REYES, Mercantile Law
G.R. No. 190641, November 10, 2015 Remedial Law
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. BORJA, G.R. No. Administrative Law
201830, November 10, 2015
GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS Mercantile Law
S.J. LAND, INC.) G.R. No. 202664, November 10, 2015 Actions
Raffle of Cases
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE, Tax Delinquency Sale
INC. vs. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., G.R. No. 203883, Appeals
November 10, 2015
ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC. vs. CLARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G.R. No. 205915,
November 10, 2015
PEOPLE vs. ASIGNAR, G.R. No. 206593, November 10, Criminal Law
2015 Remedial Law
 AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No Administrative
207105, November 10, 2015 Proceeding
Election Law

PEOPLE vs. ARCEO, G.R. No. 208842, November 10, Criminal Law
2015
F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC. vs. MADRID, G.R. No. Mercantile Law
208844, November 10, 2015
TANCHULING vs. CANTELA, G.R. No. 209284,
November 10, 2015
PEOPLE vs. REMEDIOS, G.R. No. 211056, November Criminal Law
10, 2015 Remedial Law

SCRA 774 (PAGES 1-47)

Attorneys; While the lawyers arc enjoined to be precise in the allegations in their
pleadings, occasional errors, if committed or omitted without apparent intent to deceive, do
not provide the Court with compelling grounds to impose disciplinary measures.In
paragraph 12.4 of Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Relief
and/or Status Quo Ante Order with Entry of Appearance filed before the COMELEC, Atty.
Sibayan indeed erroneously wrote that the MTCC had rendered its decision on May 5, 2014.
Notably, however, it was correctly indicated in paragraph 1 of the same Manifestation/Motion
that the date of the MTCC Decision was November 26, 2014. Prescrinding therefrom, the court
finds sufficient Atty. Sibayans explanation that he merely committed a typographical error,
without any real intent to mislead. While the lawyers are enjoined to be precise in the
allegations in their pleadings, occasional errors, if committed or omitted without apparent
intent to deceive, do not provide the Court with compelling grounds to impose disciplinary
measures. (TOLENTINO vs. MILLADO AND SIBAYAN, A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015)

Same; Legal Ethic; While lawyers are free to criticize judges, criticism sans fair basis,
grossly violates the duty to accord respect owing to the courts.The Court reiterates that the
use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.38 Further, while lawyers are free to criticize judges, criticism sans fair basis, grossly
violates the duty to accord respect owing to the courts. The Court notes that while Tolentino
filed the instant complaint against the respondents for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, their allegations herein clearly included the respondents' unfair
attribution of lack of expertise and experience, and impartiality of the MTCC. (TOLENTINO vs.
MILLADO AND SIBAYAN, A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015)
 Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage; Section 2 of
Circular No. 7-2002 authorizes the Clerk of Court to collect filing fees for the conduct of
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate or chattel mortgage under the direction of the sheriff.
Section 2 of Circular No. 7-2002 authorizes the Clerk of Court to collect filling fees for the
conduct of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate or chattel mortgage under the direction of
the sheriff. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATION vs. COREA, A.M. NO. P-11-2992,
November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; Same; Clerk of Courts; Only the Clerk of Court is authorized to collect
payments for the fees for the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate and chattel mortgage
The Revised Rules of Court only amend the amounts of fees that may be collected for
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate and chattel mortgages conducted under the direction of
the sheriff, but the guidelines, it is clear that only the Clerk of Court is authorized to collect
payment for such fees. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATION vs. COREA, A.M. NO. P-11-
2992, November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Foreclosure of Mortgage; A writ of possession will
issue as a matter of course, even without the filing and approval of a band, after
consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the
name of the purchases. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the
purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption
period. Upon the purchasers filing of an ex parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond,
the RTC shall, as a matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of possession in the
purchasers favor. But equally well settled is the rule that a writ of possession will issue as a
matter of course, even without the filing and approval of a bond, after consolidation of
ownership and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of the purchaser. Upon expiration of the
redemption period, the right of the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed property
becomes absolute. This right to possession is based on the purchasers ownership of the
property. In like manner, the mere filing of an ex parte motion for the issuance of the writ of
possession would suffice and the filing of a bond is no longer necessary. This is because
possession has become the absolute right of the purchaser as the confirmed owner. (BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND vs. CO, G.R. No 171172, November 9, 2015)

Administrative Law; Court Personnel; Sheriffs; Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Services; Sheriff Corea, in billing and collecting from the Rural bank of Polomolok
services fees and incidental expenses for the conduct of extrajudicial foreclosure of property,
not only failed to follow the proper procedural steps, but acted without authority. In Judge
Tan v. Paredes, 464 SCRA 47 (2005), the Court pronounced that a sheriff, in implementing a writ
of execution, "cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without
observing the proper procedural steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty or extortion."
Said pronouncement is just as relevant in this case where Sheriff Corea, in billing and collecting
from the Rural Bank of Polomolok service fees and incidental expenses for the conduct of
extrajudicial foreclosure of property, not only failed to follow the proper procedural steps, but
acted without authority. Even if done completely in good faith, it cannot be helped that Sheriff
Corea's actuations would be in the eyes of the public tainted with suspicions of dishonesty or
extortion. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATION vs. COREA, A.M. NO. P-11-2992,
November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; Affidavits; Affidavits may be sufficient

to establish substantial evidenceAffidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence means "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." In Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission,35 this Court gave credence to the affidavits of the 17
employees of Capitol Medical Center, its security guards, and the union members, to the effect
that no strike vote took place, in that case, while the Labor Arbiter upheld the affidavits of the
employees, guards and union members of Capitol Medical Center, the NLRC and the Court of
Appeals ruled that the affidavits had no probative value because they were executed out of
fear. The Court of Appeals also noted that the affidavits were uniform and pro forma. (PUNONG
BAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A) vs. LEPON, G.R. No. 174115, November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Words and Phrases; An
indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief
sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party
to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. The indispensable parties in the case are not only
the Cuaycong brothers but also the petitioners. An indispensable party is one whose interest in
the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the
other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. On
the contrary, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject
matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be
prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court. (BENEDICTO-
MUOZ vs. CACHO-OLIVARES, G.R. No. 179129, November 9, 2015)

Mercantile Law; Securities Regulation Code; The Securities Regulation Code (SRC) the
punishes the persons primarily liable for fraudulent transactions under Section 58 and their
aiders or abettors under Section 515.5, by making their liability for damages joint and
solidary. In particular, the "fraud" referred to in Section 26.3 pertains to fraud which is akin to
bad faith implying a conscious design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity.65 Section 51.4 of the SRC makes it "unlawful for any person to aid, abet, counsel,
command, induce or procure any violation of the Code." The SRC then punishes the persons
primarily liable for fraudulent transactions under Section 58 and their aiders or abettors under
Section 51.5, by making their liability for damages joint and solidary. (BENEDICTO-MUOZ vs.
CACHO-OLIVARES, G.R. No. 179129, November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; The law provides three remedies to victims of securities fraud namely:
civil, criminal and administrative actions. We agree with the respondents that the protection
of the investing public against fraudulent practices and machinations is a well-entrenched
policy in our jurisdiction. The law provides three remedies to victims of securities fraud namely:
civil, criminal and administrative actions. Respondents chose to pursue a civil complaint against
the petitioners. Under the SRC, respondents may recover damages not exceeding triple the
amount of the transaction plus actual damages. Exemplary damages and attorney's fees may
also be awarded. (BENEDICTO-MUOZ vs. CACHO-OLIVARES, G.R. No. 179129, November 9,
2015)

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Hierarchy of Courts; Although the Supreme
Court (SC) has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals (CA) as regards petition for
certiorari, such petitions are filed before the Ca( following of course, the National Labor
Relations Commissions [NLRCs] denial of the appropriate Motion for Reconsideration.),
rather than directly before the SC. This is consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts.
As clarified in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission, judicial
review of decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission is permitted. However, this
review is through a petition for certiorari (i.e., special civil action for certiorari) under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, rather than through an appeal. Moreover, although this court has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals as regards petitions for certiorari, such
petitions are filed before the Court of Appeals (following, of course, the National Labor
Relations Commission's denial of the appropriate Motion for Reconsideration), rather than
directly before this court. This is consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. It is only
from an adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals that a party may come to this court, which shall
then be by way of a petition for review on certiorari (i.e., appeal by certiorari) under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. (MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 185058, November
9, 2015)

Same; Certiorari; Petition for Review on Certiorari; A petition for certiorari under Rule
65 is an original action. It is independent of the action that gave rise to the assailed ruling. In
contrast, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal. A petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It is independent of the action that gave rise to the
assailed ruling. In contrast, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal.
Thus, it is a continuation of the case subject of the appeal. It follows then that it cannot go
beyond the issues that were properly the subject of the original action from which it arose.
(MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 185058, November 9, 2015)
 Professional Regulation; Regulation of a profession is a specific response to the need
for certain standards to be met by the members of that profession [;] [albeit] [t]he need for
the nature of such regulation is dependent on the specific profession and the market
conditions in which it operates. Persons claiming themselves to be professionals hold
themselves out to others and to society itself as being faithful to benchmarks of quality. Being a
professional is, thus, a matter of credibility and trustworthiness. Accordingly, ethics and values
are as inherent to professions as are training and technical competence. Standards of integrity
can never be divorced from standards of workmanship, technique, and operation. It is precisely
with the public interest in mind that professional regulationwhether by the state or by
members of the professions themselves, i.e., self-regulationis an accepted norm. In legal
parlance and where the state apparatus is employed, professional regulation is a matter of
police power. Regardless, whether through the state apparatus or through self-imposed
mechanisms, all professions continually strive for the ideal of making themselves and their
members exemplary and beyond reproach. "Regulation of a profession is a specific response to
the need for certain standards to be met by the members of that profession[;] [albeit] [t]he
need for and nature of such regulation is dependent on the specific profession and the market
conditions in which it operates. (MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 185058,
November 9, 2015)

Same; Relevant as it is, ethical behavior takes on even greater significance in the
education and training of individuals who are prospective members of the profession.
Relevant as it is, ethical behavior takes on even greater significance in the education and
training of individuals who are prospective members of the profession. Professionals who
concurrently take on the role of educators act as gatekeepers to the esteemed ranks of a
profession or as channels of skills and knowledge. Moreover, they manifest by example the
ideals of their profession. Often, it is with these educators that students have their first
authentic and personal encounters with the professionals they seek be counted amongst.
Professionals educate students and open their eyes to what it means to be lawyers, teachers,
doctors, nurses, or engineers, not only by theory, but even by the very examples of their lives.
(MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 185058, November 9, 2015)

Same; The totality of the indiscretions imputed to petitioner reflects negatively on the
accountancy profession and indicates anything but professional behavior. We fail to see how
petitioner can avoid the conclusion that these indiscretions do not reflect her fitness as an
educator for the accountancy profession and her employment with respondent Ateneo de Naga
University. These acts run afoul of the first and most basic of the fundamental ethical principles
of the accountancy profession: integrity. Her having sanctioned unauthorized advances
demonstrates a violation of the second fundamental ethical principle: objectivity. Even
assuming that these acts do not evince a premeditated scheme, they nevertheless manifest
that petitioner failed to act diligently, that is, competently and with due care. The totality of the
indiscretions imputed to petitioner reflects negatively on the accountancy profession and
indicates anything but professional behavior. (MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY,
G.R. No. 185058, November 9, 2015)

Criminal Law, Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule; Failure to strictly comply
with the chain of custody rule will not render an arrest illegal of the seized items inadmissible
in evidence in the view of the qualification permitted by Section 21(a) of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. Appellant notes the absence
of evidence which shows that the buy-bust operation was exercised in coordination with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) or the barangay authorities, and the failure of the
police officers to properly identify and to physically conduct an inventory of the seized items in
his presence, as mandated by Section 21, Paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 which provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (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[.}It bears stressing however, that failure to strictly comply with the
foregoing procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in
evidence in view of the qualification permitted by Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, to wit: (a) The apprehending officer/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:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items[.] Thus, it has been held that for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved pursuant to the chain of custody rule, non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA No. 9165 does not automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or
inadmissible the items seized. The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the
identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly
monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the
time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as
a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of
an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition
in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same. (PEOPLE vs. DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; The recording of marked money used in
a buy-bust operation is not one (1) of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal
drugs.Appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove the legitimacy of the operation
considering the absence of any document that would prove that there was indeed a report by
the confidential informant of the police officers. Yet, nowhere in his appellant's brief did he
provide any basis, jurisprudential or otherwise, to support his conclusions that these alleged
lapses are fatal to his prosecution. In fact, as aptly ruled by the CA, the recording of marked
money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of
illegal drugs. Neither is it required that the confidential informant put his tip down in writing.
For as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven, the recording or non-
recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal. (PEOPLE vs.
DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; Buy-Bust Operation; The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction. It must be emphasized, at this point, that for a successful prosecution of offenses
involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, all of the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor. Succinctly stated, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of
the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is
material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence. (PEOPLE vs. DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925,
November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; It is a well-entrenched rule that the

findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this
Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent
facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or
reversal of the outcome of the case. Since prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on
the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation, reliance may be
made on the findings of fact of the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. Thus, in view of the clear and straightforward evidence of the
prosecution vis-a-vis appellant's unsubstantiated defenses, this Court shall accord a high degree
of respect to the factual findings of the courts below. (PEOPLE vs. DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925,
November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure, Information; Conspiracy; In Tan, Jr. V.

Sandiganbayan, 292 SCRA 452 (1998), cited by the Court of Appeals (CA), the Court declared
that an information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one (1) person is charged
except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirator who were not charged in the
information.In the instant case, conspiracy is alleged only as a mode of committing the
crime. The court finds that the information filed against the petitioner adequately complied
with the requirements as set forth in Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan. The Information charges
that the petitioner, with Clemente, took FEBTCs money through fraudulent transfers to and
withdrawal from the former's Account Number 5115-12827-6. Although the words "conspire"
and "confederated" do not appear in the indictment, there is a clear allegation that the
petitioner and Clemente were united in their purpose of fraudulently taking FEBTC's money.
The Information, thus, enables the petitioner to amply prepare for his defense. (INOCENCIO vs.
PEOPLE, G.R. No. 205760, November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Information; An

information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person with an
offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintiffs cause
or cause of action. Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines pleadings as
the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment. Among the pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof are
the complaint and the answer in a civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule 110 of the
same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. In accordance with the above
definitions, it is clear that an information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which
charge a person with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which
alleges a plaintiffs cause or cause of action. (PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041,
November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Information; An

Information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person with an
offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintifs cause or
cause of action. Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines pleadings as the
written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court
for appropriate judgment. Among the pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof are the
complaint and the answer in a civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule 110 of the
same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. In accordance with the above
definitions, it is clear that an information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which
charge a person with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which
alleges a plaintiffs cause or cause of action. (PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041,
November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; Same; Same; Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United
States (US), upon which our rules of criminal procedure were patterned; an information is
considered a pleading. Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United States (US),
upon which our rules of criminal procedure were patterned; an information is considered a
pleading. Thus, Rule 12(a), Title IV of the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
states that: "[t]he pleadings in a criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and
the pleas of not guilty, guilty, and nolo contendere." Thus, the Supreme Court of Washington
held that: An information is a pleading. It is the formal statement on the part of the state of the
facts constituting the offense which the defendant is accused of committing. In other words, it
is the plain and concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action. It bears the
same relation to a criminal action that a complaint does to a civil action; and, when verified, its
object is not to satisfy the court or jury that the defendant is guilty, nor is it for the purpose of
evidence which is to be weighed and passed upon, but is only to inform the defendant of the
precise acts or omissions with which he is accused, the truth of which is to be determined
thereafter by direct and positive evidence upon a trial, where the defendant is brought face to
face with the witnesses. In a similar manner, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that "[a]n
indictment in a criminal case is a pleading, since it accomplishes the same purpose as a
declaration in a civil suit, pleading by allegation the cause of action in law against [a] defendant.
(PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, 2015)

Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari,
the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without
jurisdiction. As to petitioner's contention that the failure of the investigating prosecutor to
indicate in the subject Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance is a mere formal defect and is not a valid ground to dismiss such Information,
suffice it to state that B.M. No. 1922 categorically provides that "[f]ailure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings
from the records." In this regard, petitioner must be reminded that it assailed the trial court's
dismissal of the subject Information via a special civil action for certiorari filed with the CA. The
writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the
abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or
to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.
Since the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information was based on a clear and categorical
provision of a rule issued by this Court, the court a quo could not have committed a capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or despotic
manner. Thus, the CA did not commit error in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari.
(PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, 2015)

Same; Criminal Procedure; pleadings and Practice; Information; To avoid undue delay
in the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the parties' respective rights to a
speedy disposition of their case, the prosecution, mindful of its duty not only to prosecute
offenders but more importantly to do justice, could have simply re-filed the Information
containing the required number and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE
Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the filing of various petitions in court to
stubbornly insist on its position and question the trial court's dismissal of the subject
Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources. In harping on its
contention that the ends of justice would be best served if the criminal case would be allowed
to proceed in order to determine the innocence or culpability of the ciccused, petitioner sounds
as if the dismissal of the Information left the prosecution with no other recourse or remedy so
as to irreversibly jeopardize the interests of the State and the private offended party. On the
contrary, the Court agrees with the CA that the dismissal of the Information, without prejudice,
did not leave the prosecution without any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. To avoid
undue delay in the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the parties' respective
rights to a speedy disposition of their case, the prosecution, mindful of its duty not only to
prosecute offenders but more importantly to do justice, could have simply re-filed the
Information containing the required number and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's
MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the filing of various petitions in court to
stubbornly insist on its position and question the trial court's dismissal of the subject
Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources. (PEOPLE vs.
ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, 2015)

Same; Same; Same; Same; Under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer
to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate
of Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the
pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the
prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action. In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the
disposition of cases brought about by a counsel's failure to indicate in his or her pleadings the
number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this Court issued an En
Bane Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the
phrase "Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and
the expunction of the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to disclose the
required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action."
Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her
pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no
longer result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records.
Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary
action. (PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, 2015)

Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; The notarial seal converts a document
from a private instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need of proof
of its genuineness and due execution. A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of
notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents
or instruments. In the performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of
the significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a
document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence
without need of proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be
treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties calling for
carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most
importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
(LEONES VDA. DE MILLER vs. MIRANDA, A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015)

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; His attempt to escape administrative sanctions by pinning the
blame on his secretary cannot be condoned as case law instructs that in these instances, the
lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these kinds of
mesdeeds. Respondents failure to carefully double-check the draft of the original SPA
submitted to him by his secretary led him to notarize a document which did not reflect the true
intent of his client. His attempt to escape administrative sanctions by pinning the blame on his
secretary cannot be condoned as case law instructs that in these instances, the lawyer himself,
not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these kinds of misdeeds. 25 Worse,
respondent himself caused the intercalation of the notarized SPA by inserting handwritten
alterations therein which changed its meaning - thus, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Absent any competent proof, respondent's assertion
that he was verbally authorized by Magbuhos in altering the SPA is self-serving and cannot be
given any credence. (LEONES VDA. DE MILLER vs. MIRANDA, A.C. No. 8507, November 10,
2015)
 Mercantile Law; Corporations; Non-Stock Corporations; Property Rights; Membership
in a non-stock corporation is a property right and as such, public policy demands that its
termination must be done in accordance with substantial justice. Membership in a non-stock
corporation is a property right and as such, public policy demands that its termination must be
done in accordance with substantial justice. In Valley Golf and Country Club v. Vda de Caram a
case involving the same corporate entity, the Court had the occasion to set the standards in
terminating membership in a non-stock corporation, viz: It may be conceded that the actions
of Valley Golf were, technically speaking, in accord with the provisions of its by-laws on
termination of membership, vaguely defined as these are. Yet especially since the termination
of membership in Valley Golf is inextricably linked to the deprivation of property rights over the
Golf Share, the emergence of such adverse consequences make legal and equitable standards
come to fore. It is unmistakably wise public policy to require that the termination of
membership in a non-stock corporation be done in accordance with substantial justice. No
matter how one may precisely define such term, it is evident in this case that the termination of
Carams membership betrayed the dictates of substantial justice. (VALLEY GOLF AND COUNTRY
CLUB, INC. vs. REYES, G.R. No. 190641, November 10, 2015)

Remedial Law; Service by Registered Mail; In civil cases, service made through
registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit
of the person mailing. It is erroneous for Valley Golf to postulate that the requirement that
registry return card must be authenticated is solely confined in criminal cases where the
required quantum of evidence to satisfy conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even in
civil cases where the quantum of proof to warrant a favorable judgment is one notch lower that
than the exacting standards set in criminal cases, the required authentication of the registry
return card is not dispensed with. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved
by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing. Absent
one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service. (VALLEY GOLF AND COUNTRY
CLUB, INC. vs. REYES, G.R. No. 190641, November 10, 2015)

Same; Same; The law mandates that there is a need to present both the registry
receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing. Valley Golf, as the
party asserting receipt of notice bears the burden of proof to prove notice. When the service of
notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the
fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Failure
to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the notice of delinquency was
not duly received by the shareholder. While it assiduously claims that Reyes was served a notice
of delinquency, the golf club, however, miserably failed to meet the standard set by law to
prove receipt of notice. To be sure, the mere presentation of the registry return card with an
unauthenticated signature, without more, does not satisfy the required proof. The law
mandates that there is a need to present both the registry receipt issued by the mailing office
and the affidavit of the person mailing. (
 Same; Same; Property Rights; When the property right of a person is at stake and he
stands to lose his share to the corporation due to non-payment of dues, receipt of notice of
delinquency cannot be lightly inferred from an incomplete, unreadable and unverified copy of
the registry receipt without impinging the rule on non-deprivation of property rights without
the benefit substantial justice enunciated in Valley Golf and Country Club v. Vda de Caram;
585 SCRA 218 (2009). When the property right of a person is at stake and he stands to lose his
share to the corporation due to non-payment of dues, receipt of notice of delinquency cannot
be lightly inferred from an incomplete, unreadable and unverified copy of the registry receipt
without impinging the rule on non-deprivation of property rights without the benefit
substantial justice enunciated in Valley Golf and Country Club v. Vda de Caram. It may be
conceded that that the actions of Valley golf were, technically speaking, in accord with the
provisions of its by-laws on termination of membership vaguely defined as these are. Yet,
especially since the termination of membership in Valley Golf is inextricably linked to the
deprivation of the property rights over the Golf Share, the emergence of such adverse
consequences make legal and equitable standards come to fore. VALLEY GOLF AND COUNTRY
CLUB, INC. vs. REYES, G.R. No. 190641, November 10, 2015)

Administrative Law; Civil Service; Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service; While there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the offense of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the services under the civil service law and rules, it
has been jurisprudentially held to pertain to acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the
public officers function. While there is no concrete description of what specific acts
constitute the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the civil
service law and rules, it has been jurisprudentially held to pertain to acts that tarnish the image
and integrity of the public office, even if it not be related or connected to the public officer's
function.46 Among others, the Court has considered the following acts or omissions such as:
misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without
prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public
documents, and falsification of court orders. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court holds that
Borja acted in a manner prejudicial to the best interest of the service. By causing SPCWD to pay
the backwages and other benefits due Eje and Tolentino, Borja clearly placed said office in a
financial disadvantage as it was made to pay a liability which did not belong to it, especially
considering that the amount involved and taken from SPCWD's funds, i.e., P1,942,031.82, is by
no means negligible. In doing so, the integrity of Borja's office was put in to question, and
SPCWD was placed in a deleterious financial position. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs.
BORJA, G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015)

Same; The dismissal of the Criminal case is not a ground for the dismissal of the
administrative case, in consonance with the rule that a criminal case is separate from an
administrative case and each must be disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable
to each case. Moreover, in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused must be established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction could be had, while liability in administrative
cases is only hinged on the lesser threshold of substantial evidence, defined as that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Besides, the elements for the commission of graft and corrupt practices under Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019, are different from what constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, which is an administrative offense. The following are the essential elements for
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019: (1) The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) He must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) That his action caused any undue injury to
any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. On the other hand, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service has been consistently held to pertain to acts that
tarnish the image and integrity of the public office, although not necessarily related or
connected to the public officer's function. Thus, while the absence of bad faith may negate
criminal liability for graft and corrupt practices under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, it does not
automatically absolve Borja of administrative liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service, considering that the only question material to the latter is whether the public
officer's acts tarnished the image or integrity of the public office. At this juncture, the Court
deems it fit to emphasize that a public office is a public trust.52 As such, public officers must, at
all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty
and efficiency (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. BORJA, G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015)

Mercantile Law; Corporations; Intra-Corporate Controversies; Special Commercial

Courts; Jurisdiction; Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test, the
suit between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship
and pertains to the enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation,
hence, intra-corporate, which should be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court as
provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in relation to Item 5.2, Section 5
of RA 8799. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test, the suit
between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship and
pertains to the enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation
Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation,24 hence, intra-
corporate, which should be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court as provided
under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in relation to Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
(GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Same; Same; Same; Same; By virtue of Republic Act (RA) No. 8799, jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 528 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was transferred from the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction.
As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a
particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court's
exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or
by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held
that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction
or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to
do with the question of jurisdiction. Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on
August 8, 2000. By virtue of said law, jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 28 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A29 was transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction. (GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Same; Same; Same; Same; on June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC
consolidating the commercial SEC courts and the intellectual property courts 39 in one RTC
branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special Commercial Court, to streamline the court
structure and to promote expediency. It was only on November 21, 2000 that the Court
designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC cases without, however, providing
for the transfer of the cases already distributed to or filed with the regular branches thereof.
Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2001 directing
the transfer of said cases to the designated courts (commercial SEC courts). Later, or on June
17, 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC consolidating the commercial SEC courts and
the intellectual property courts in one RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special
Commercial Court, to streamline the court structure and to promote expediency. Accordingly,
the RTC branch so designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those
involving violations of intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon, required to be filed
in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial
Courts. (GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; So as to avert any future confusion, the Court requires
henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and the
body. According to jurisprudence, "it is not the caption but the allegations in the complaint or
other initiatory pleading which give meaning to the pleading and on the basis of which such
pleading may be legally characterized." However, so as to avert any future confusion, the Court
requires henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and
the body, which parameters are defined in the dispositive portion of this Decision. (GONZALES
vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Raffle of Cases; Regional Trial Courts; Special Commercial Courts; The erroneous
raffling to a regular branch instead of to a Special Commercial Court is only a matter of
procedure - that is, an incident related to the exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, should not
negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a
scenario, the proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed;
instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-
docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then assign said case
to the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256. The Court
nonetheless deems that the erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a Special
Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure - that is, an incident related to the exercise of
jurisdiction - and, thus, should not negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa City had
already acquired. In such a scenario, the proper course of action was not for the commercial
case to be dismissed; instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive
Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then
assign said case to the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch
256. Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC acquiring jurisdiction over the
case has multiple special commercial court branches; in such a scenario, the Executive Judge,
after re-docketing the same as a commercial case, should proceed to order its re-raffling
among the said special branches. (GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J.
LAND, INC.)

Same; Same; Same; If the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquiring jurisdiction has no
branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest
RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. If the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a Special
Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special
Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the case
was referred to should re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC
has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole
special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial
Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches. (GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; The designation of Special Commercial Courts was
merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line
with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. The Court finds it apt to point out that the same
principles apply to the inverse situation of ordinary civil cases filed before the proper RTCs
but wrongly raffled to its branches designated as Special Commercial Courts. In such a
scenario, the ordinary civil case should then be referred to the Executive Judge for re-
docketing as an ordinary civil case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then order the
raffling of the case to all branches of the same RTC, subject to limitations under existing
internal rules, and the payment of the correct docket fees in case of any difference. Unlike the
limited assignment/raffling of a commercial case only to branches designated as Special
Commercial Courts in the scenarios stated above, the re-raffling of an ordinary civil case in this
instance to all courts is permissible due to the fact that a particular branch which has been
designated as a Special Commercial Court does not shed the RTC's general jurisdiction over
ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law, i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129.
To restate, the designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural
tool to expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of
jurisdiction. This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court
rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its
constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel thereof.
Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding
statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the designation of Special Commercial Courts is, to
stress, merely an incident related to the court's exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first
discussed, is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC's general
jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is therefore not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining
court procedure. (GONZALES vs. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.)

Tax Delinquency Sale; After the expiration of the redemption period, after all, a
property acquired pursuant to a tax delinquency sale, like that purchased from a public
auction sale, passes to the purchaser, free from any encumbrance or third party claim not
inscribed on the certificate of title. Since the Block 494 remained in private ownership, HATVI
has neither factual nor legal basis to question the sale thereof by the Quezon City government
for tax delinquency. As highest bidder at the tax delinquency sale, J.M. Tuason was acting well
within its rights when it sold the property to THI which had the right to rely on what appears on
the title covering the same. After the expiration of the redemption period, after all, a property
acquired pursuant to a tax delinquency sale, like that purchased from a public auction sale,
passes to the purchaser, free from any encumbrance or third party claim48 not inscribed on the
certificate of title. Also, having purchased the property from J.M. Tuason, THI was likewise
acting well-. within its rights to cause the subdivision thereof, offer the same to the general
public and to utilize the same as security for the loan it obtained from Equitable Bank. Given
that the property was purchased at a tax delinquency sale, on the other hand, Equitable Bank
cannot be considered in bad faith when it primarily relied on what appeared on the title over
the property. (HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE, INC. vs. J.M. TUASON &
CO., INC., G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015)

Appeals; Due Process; Necessitated by basic considerations of due process, the rule is
settled that, unless it affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the
appealed judgement, no error will be considered unless assigned error and probably argued
in the brief. In G.R. No. 203930, J.M. Tuason and THI, in turn, take exception to the CA's
finding that, as owners of the land, they were in bad faith for not opposing the construction of
the structures and amenities thereon pursuant to Articles 454 and 447 of the Civil Code. Aside
from the fact, however, that THI appears to have purchased the property long after said
improvements were built on Block 494, the supposed bad faith of J.M. Tuason and THI is a
matter that was neither litigated before the RTC nor raised as error before the CA. Necessitated
by basic considerations of due process, the rule is settled that, unless it affects the jurisdiction
over the subject matter or the validity of the appealed judgment, no error will be considered
unless assigned as such or is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly
argued in the brief. Courts are, moreover, called upon to resolve actual cases and controversies,
not to render advisory opinions which are beyond the permissible scope of judicial power. The
CA contravened these rule when, simultaneous to its determination of bad faith on the part of
J.M. Tuason and THI, it ruled that the resultant damages will have to be determined in a
separate proceeding specially commenced for the purpose. (HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF
TALAYAN VILLAGE, INC. vs. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015)

ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC. vs. CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G.R. No.
205915, November 10, 2015

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Shabu; Elements of. For the
successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following elements are essential: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is proof that the sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item, as part of the corpus
delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. (PEOPLE vs. ASIGNAR, G.R.
No. 206593, November 10, 2015)

Same; Same; Illegal Prossesion of Regulated or Prohibited Drugs; Elements of. For
illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution mustestablish the following
elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug. All the elements were established in this case. Incident to his
lawful arrest, when he was frisked three (3) plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline
substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous drug, was taken from his possession. In a
number of cases, it has been declared that mere possession of a regulated drug per se
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possendi sufficient to convict an
accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to
the accused, of knowledge or animus possidendi. Mere possession of the prohibited substance
and the burden of proof is upon accused-appellant to show that he has a license or permit
under law to possess the prohibited drug. The accused-appellant failed to explain his
possession of the prohibited drug. Accused-appellant was misled in his belief that the burden to
prove the lack of license or permit to possess the prohibited drug lies with the prosecution.
(PEOPLE vs. ASIGNAR, G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015)

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appealsl; Findings of fact as determined by the

trial court are entitles to great weight and respect for appellate courts and should not be
disturbed on appeal unless for cogent reasons. It must be remembered that findings of fact
as determined by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect from appellate courts
and should not be disturbed on appeal unless for cogent reasons. These findings generally, so
long as supported by evidence on record, are not to be disturbed unless there are some facts or
evidence which the trial court has misappreciated or overlooked, and which if considered
would have altered the results of the entire case. We see no reason to depart from this legal
principles. (PEOPLE vs. ASIGNAR, G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015)

Administrative Proceedings; Due Process; It is worthy to state that the observance of

due process in administrative proceedings does not always require or involve a trial-type
proceeding, for the demand of due process is also met whatever a person, being notified, is
afforded the opportunity to explain or defend himself. We note that the petitioner's
citizenship came to the fore because he himself asserted his Philippine citizenship in his answer
to Pillos' petition to cancel his CoC in order to bolster his allegation of compliance with the one-
year residency requirement. As such, he could not credibly complain about being denied due
process, especially considering that he had been able to file an opposition to Pillos' motion for
reconsideration. It is worthy to state that the observance of due process in administrative
proceedings does not always require or involve a trial-type proceeding, for the demand of due
process is also met whenever a person, being notified, is afforded the opportunity to explain or
defend himself. Also, due process is satisfied by giving the opportunity to seek the
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The rule is the same in election cases.
(AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No 207105, November 10, 2015)

Election Law; There are two (2) remedies available under the existing laws to prevent
a candidate from running in an electoral race. One is by petition for disqualification, and the
other by petition to deny due course to or to cancel his certificate of candidacy. A valid CoC
arises upon the timely filing of a person's declaration of his intention to run for public office and
his affirmation that he possesses the eligibility for the position he seeks to assume. The valid
CoC renders the person making the declaration a valid or official candidate.There are two
remedies available under existing laws to prevent a candidate from running in an electoral race.
One is by petition for disqualification, and the other by petition to deny due course to or to
cancel his certificate of candidacy. (AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No
207105, November 10, 2015)

Same; The denial of due course to or the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy
(CoC) under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) involves a finding not only that a
person lacked a qualification for the office he is vying for but also that such he made a
material representation in the CoC that was false. The denial of due course to or the
cancellation of the CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code involves a finding not
only that a person lacked a qualification for the office he is vying for but also that such he made
a material representation in the CoC that was false. The Court has stressed in Mitra v.
Commission on Elections32 that in addition to materiality there must be a deliberate attempt to
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render the candidate ineligible.
(AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No 207105, November 10, 2015)
 Same; Citizenship; By his Oath of Allegiance and his renunciation of his USA
citizenship, he reverted to the status of an exclusively Filipino citizen. By his Oath of
Allegiance and his renunciation of his USA citizenship, he reverted to the status of an
exclusively Filipino citizen. On October 5, 2012, the date he filed his CoC he was, therefore,
exclusively a Filipino citizen, rendering him eligible to run for public office. His CoC was valid for
all intents and purposes of the election laws because he did not make therein any material
misrepresentation of his eligibility to run as Mayor of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte.
(AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No 207105, November 10, 2015)

Same; Same; Dual Citizenship; The petitioner's continued exercise of his rights as a
citizen of the USA through using his USA passport after the renunciation of his USA citizenship
reverted him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion disqualified him from being
elected to public office in the Philippines pursuant to Section 40(d) of the Local Government
Code (LGU). We uphold the declaration by the COMELEC En Banc that the petitioner was
ineligible to run and be voted for as Mayor of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte. It is not
disputed that on October 6, 2012, after having renounced his USA citizenship and having
already filed his CoC, he travelled abroad using his USA passport, thereby representing himself
as a citizen of the USA. He continued using his USA passport in his subsequent travels abroad
despite having been already issued his Philippine passport on August 23, 2012. He thereby
effectively repudiated his oath of renunciation on October 6, 2012, the first time he used his
USA passport after renouncing his USA citizenship on October 2, 2012. Consequently, he could
be considered an exclusively Filipino citizen only for the four days from October 2, 2012 until
October 6, 2012. The petitioner's continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the USA through
using his USA passport after the renunciation of his USA citizenship reverted him to his earlier
status as a dual citizen.39 Such reversion disqualified him from being elected to public office in
the Philippines pursuant to Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code (LGU). (AGUSTIN vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No 207105, November 10, 2015)

Criminal Law; Rape; Elements of. Accused-appellant is charged with rape under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code. For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the following
elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge
of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or
intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when
the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. (PEOPLE vs. ARCEO, G.R. No. 208842,
November 10, 2015)

Same; Same; Simple Rape; Penalties; The presence of an aggravating circumstance

cannot serve to raise the penalty to be imposed [because] simple rape is punishable by the
single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first
paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying
circumstance that might have attended the commission of the crime. The trial court
properly appreciated minority, which was pleaded in the Information, as an aggravating
circumstance. According to MMM's birth certificate, she was 12 years and 8 months old at the
time of the rape. Said document was offered and presented in evidence by the prosecution.
Nevertheless, "the presence of an aggravating circumstance cannot serve to raise the penalty
to be imposed [because] simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal
Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying circumstance that might have attended the
commission of the crime. (PEOPLE vs. ARCEO, G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015)

Same; Exemplary Damages; When a crime is committed with an aggravating

circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified
under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, a modification
on the award of damages is in order. In line with our ruling in People of the Philippines v.
Domingo Gallano y Jaranilla, we reduce the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages to
P50,000.00 each. However, we award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. When
a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award
of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. In addition, interest
at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the
finality of this judgment until fully paid. (PEOPLE vs. ARCEO, G.R. No. 208842, November 10,
2015)

Mercantile Law; Corporations; Shares of Stock; All transfers of shares of stock must be
registered in the corporate books in order to be binding on the corporation. Verily, all
transfers of shares of stock must be registered in the corporate books in order to be binding on
the corporation. Specifically, this refers to the Stock and Transfer Book, which is described in
Section 74 of the same Code. (F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC. vs. MADRID, G.R. No. 208844,
November 10, 2015)

Same; Same; Same; The case of Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. v. Bitanga38
instructs that an owner of shares of stock cannot be accorded the rights pertaining to a
stockholder - such as the right to call for a meeting and the right to vote, or be voted for - if
his ownership of such shares is not recorded in the Stock and Transfer Book. The case of
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. v. Bitanga38 instructs that an owner of shares of stock
cannot be accorded the rights pertaining to a stockholder - such as the right to call for a
meeting and the right to vote, or be voted for - if his ownership of such shares is not recorded
in the Stock and Transfer Book. (F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC. vs. MADRID, G.R. No. 208844,
November 10, 2015)