8098

I. Analysis and Treatment of an Earlier Case in a Court Decision

(Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Armando Guilaran, G.R. No. 221967)

1. Mabunga v. People - Cited

2. Wa-acon v. People- Cited
3. David v. Macasio- Cited
4. Velasco v. NLRC- Distinguished
5. Pulp and Paper Inc. v. NLRC- Followed
6. Custodio v. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission- Cited
7. Nacar v. Gallery Frames- Followed

II. Analysis and Treatment of an Earlier Case in a Present Case

Cited
“Thus, prima facie evidence is not conclusive or absolute –evidence to the contrary may be
presented by the party disputing the assumption of fact made by inference of law and the court
may validly consider such.”
(Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Armando Guilaran, G.R. No. 221967)
Discussed
In this case, we find that the lower court did not err in its ruling. The issue raised
in this present case was already resolved in the case of Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural Co., Inc.
v. Armando Guilaran.
This court reiterates that while payrolls enjoys the presumption of regularity as
entries made in the course of business, this presumption of regularity can be effectively
overthrown by evidence of the contrary. Furthermore, the evidence presented in this case is
undisputed.
Followed
The issue in this case, whether or not petitioner herein is illegally dismissed in
the contention that he is not a regular employee.
Following the ruling of this Court in the case of Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural
Co., Inc. v. Armando Guilaran, G.R. No. 221967, a worker who does not work throughout a year
is called a seasonal worker and it serves as a badge of regular employment.
Wherefore in view of the jurisprudence, petitioner herein is deemed illegally
dismissed.
Distinguished
This court have categorically distinguished task basis engagement or pakyaw
and straight-hour wage payement, in the case of Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural Co., Inc. v.
Armando Guilaran, G.R. No. 221967 is the non-consideration of time spent in working. To
determine the amount of backwages for task basis engagement or piece-rate, there is a need to
determine the varying degrees of production and days worked by each worker. In above-cited
case dealt with sugarcane farming that jurisprudence have provided the presumption that it
lasts for the periods of six to eight months.
However, this court cannot rely on the same presumption as the crops dealt by
 the above-cited case and the present case are different in nature. In the instant case, as we are
all well-informed that banana is not a seasonal crop as it is available all year round.
Overruled
In the case of Romiro Lim & Sons Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Armando Guilaran,
G.R. No. 221967 , the court have established that in computation of backwages payrolls are to
be used as prima facie evidence, thus presumption of regularity applied. However evidence to
the contrary may overthrow the presumption of regularity.
This court is aware that the “evidence to the contrary” is loosely pronounced,
wherefore to overthrow presumption of regularity, clear and convincing evidence is necessary.
In relation to the present case, we grant the appeal of the petitioner. The
appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground, that evidence to the contrary have
been presented to make the payrolls of herein petitioner inot reliable to compute for
backwages. Thus, unless there is a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the use of
payrolls as prima facie evidence to compute for backwages, is undisputed.

III. Case Summary

Case:
Goodland Company, Inc., petitioner v. Banco De Oro-Unibank, Inc., and Goodgold Realty
and Development Corporation, respondent. February 11, 2019. G.R. No. 208543.
Del Castillo, J.:
Facts:
Goodland Company Inc. Goodland is a duly registered domestic corporation, owned a
land titled TCT No. S-97436.
Sometime in the year 1999 Guy (respondent) on behalf of Richgold, Smartnet and
Goodgold secured loans and credit facilities from EPCI. Debtors failed to pay through dacion
en pago. July 30, 2004, the land, TCT No. 218470 has been applied as full payment of the
loan. A deed of Cession of the property in payment of the debt was executed. But because
of an alleged fraudulent refusal of Goodgold, EPCI could not transfer the title of the subject
land.
May 25, 2007, EPCI merged with BDO Universal Bank. On January 16, 2009 BDO filed
before the RTC of Mandaluyong a complaint with the Application for Preliminary
Attachment against Guy, Goodland and others for the delay on the dacion of the properties
and that they are guilty of fraud in the performance of their obligation to EPCI, that despite
of the execution of the Dacion en Pago, still they refused to transfer the documents. Guy et
al. are liable of the total amount of Php 409 927 978.78.
RTC granted the application for writ of preliminary attachment. Goodland and Richgold
filed omnibus motion to lift the attachment because it was deemed excessive for the said
liability. March 3, 2010, the RTC discharged the properties of Guy and Goodland on the
ground that Goodgold’s properties could cover the liability to BDO. Review for certiorari was
filed by BDO and Goodland.
CA dismissed Goodland’s Petition for Certiorari due to the principle of res judicata. The
same court reinstated the property of petitioner to the writ of attachment.

Issue:
I. Whether or not a petition failure to include a dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari
as an assigned error may be excused in order for the Court to arrive at a just and
complete resolution of the case.
 II. Whether or not the consolidation of a case with a related case will result in the
dismissal of the case.

Ruling:

I.

The Court’s resolution is in the affirmative.

Applying Rule 51, Section 8 of the Rules of Court on thepetitions for review of
certiorari under Rule 45 of the same rules, provides, that only matters assigned as
errors may be resolved by the Court. However in the case of Catholic Bishop of
Balanga v. CA, the courts have provided the exceptions to the said rule:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within contemplation of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case
or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;;
(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial
court and are matters of recod having some bearing on the issue submitted
which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(5) Matters not assigned as errord on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination
of a question properly assigned, is dependent.

The court held in this case that although not raised as issue, it is prudent to
resolve the propriety of the dismissal of the Petition of Certiorari on the grounds
of litis pendentia and/or res judicata to arrive at a just and complete resolution
of the instant case.

II.

The court held that, failure to consolidate a case with a related case does not necessarily
result in the dismissal of the case, unless there is litis pendentia or res judicata.

The court defined Consolidation as “a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in
deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched
expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties”1

Failure to consolidate a case with a related case does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of the case, unless there is litis pendentia or res judicata. Thus, it is incumbent upon the
parties to be on the lookout and to immediately inform the courts of cases pending with other courts,

1
Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Excelsa Industries, Inc., 635 Phil. 694, 700 (2012).
and if needed, to move for the consolidation of related cases with other courts, and if needed, to move
for the consolidation of related cases in order to avoid the dismissal of a case.2

IV. Analysis of a Court’s Decision

1. Is the court’s decision appropriate?
Yes the court’s decision is appropriate. In this case, the court used well established doctrines to
justify its decision.
2. Does the decision change/ modify/ conform with an existing law?
The decision conformed in the doctrine of actori incumbit onus probandi and the doctrine of
apparent authority. As well as the provision of the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
3. Is the reasoning consistent with previous reasoning in a similar case?
In this case, the court cited jurisprudence and used it to justify its decision on the liability of the
petitioners.
4. Is the court’s interpretation of the law appropriate?
Yes, the court interpreted the law appropriately and in accordance with the case.
5. Is it likely that the decision will significantly influence an existing law?
Yes, most likely the case will influence the appreciation on an existing law as it provided the
requisites of authority given to the officers of a juridical authority.
6. Does the court adequately justify its reasoning?
Yes, the court has adequately justified its reasoning with existing laws, doctrines and
jurisprudence.
7. Is the reasoning logical or consistent?
Yes the reasoning of the court in this case is logical and consistent from the application of the law
to the appreciation of evidence and facts.
8. Does the court consider all/ omit some issues and arguments? And, if there was an omission,
does this weaken the merit of the decision?
There are no issues omitted in this case since there is only one issue raised, which is whether or
not the materiality of the knowledge, consent and authority of EGI in contracts entered by its
officer who in this case is its President and with PSBank.
9. What are the policy implications of the decision?
Yes, there is, specifically to corporations, in their appreciation of their by-laws and existing
judicial doctrines.
10. Are there alternative approaches which may lead to more appropriate public policy in this
area?
In my opinion, the court had appropriately ruled in this case. There is no need for alternative
approaches.

V. Alternative Court Decision

2
Goodland Company, Inc., v BDO-Unibank, Inc., G.R> NO. 208543 (2019)
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION

ENGINEERING GEOSCIENCE, INC.,

Petitioner,

G.R. No. 187262

-versus-

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK,

Respondent.
Date: January 10, 2019

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Carpio, J:

DECISION

G.R. No. 187262 is a petition filed by Engineering Geoscience, Inc. against Philippine Savings Bank
assailing the Decision promulgated on 13 November 2008 and the Resolution Promulgated on 19 March
2009 by the Court of Appeal (CA) in CA- G.R SP No. 102885.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Petitioner EGI raised only one issue before this Court:
Whether the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the Orders dated 24 August 2007 and 23 January
2008 issued by the trial court thereby reinstating the Decision dated 12 January 1993 which approved an
alleged Compromise Agreement entered into between PSBank and the former President of EGI without
the knowledge, consent and authority of the latter.
RULING
A compromise agreement is considered as a contract and for a contract to be valid it should, in
accordance to the Civil Code of the Philippines
“Article 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.”
Herein case, EGI have not given its consent to its former president in entering the Compromise
agreement of PSBank. EGI has juridical capacity, in its own. Although clothed with the doctrine of
apparent authority, a member of the board or officer of a corporation cannot act solely on its discretion
especially on cases that may prejudice the whole corporation. In this case, the compromise agreement
that was signed by the former president of EGI have no authorization by its board, where a special
power of attorney is a material evidence to prove that the same is authorized by the whole of the
corporation. A compromise agreement once approved by final order of the court has the force of res
judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.3 Where
in this case the consent of EGI by the board of directors is not acquired.

WHEREFORE, the petition is AFFIRMED. Decision promulgated on 13 November 2008 and the
Resolution promulgated on 19 March 2009 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 102885 is
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED

3
Cruz v. Intermediate Court. G.R. No. 72806