Civil Procedure [Questions of Law under Rule 45] - It is not the Courts function to evaluate factual questions all over again. A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition filed. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the parties may raise only questions of law in petitions filed under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE, G.R. No. 183678, March 15, 2010

Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - In fact, inconsistencies which refer to minor, trivial or inconsequential circumstances even strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010Evidence [Alibi and Denial] - Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate." "Alibi and denial must be supported by strong corroborative evidence in order to merit credibility." Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish two elements (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. Stipulation and admission during the pre-trial conference and testified to by both parties in their respective testimonies are binding upon the Court because they are judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010

Civil Procedure [Jurisdiction] - Under Rule XV, Sec. 1 of RA 9295, a peculiar process of administrative remedy provides that the MARINA Administrator, and not the CA, is vested with primary jurisdiction over matters relating to the issuance of a CPC. STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION V. EUGENIA T. SAN PABLO, G.R. No. 169493, March 15, 2010

Civil Procedure [Verification; Certification against Non-Forum Shopping] - The petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments, a government entity created by the Constitution, and headed by its Chairman. There was no need for the Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person who personally knew the truth of the facts alleged in the petition could sign the verification. With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, represented herein by its Secretary HON. ARTURO L. TIU v. CELSO M. PALER, G.R. No. 172623, March 3, 2010

Civil Procedure [Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari] - Judge Barillo should be a mere nominal party in the proceedings where his decisions or orders are being assailed. Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is simple and straightforward enough in stating that "unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein." HON. HECTOR B. BARILLO, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC Guihulngan, Negros Oriental V. HON. RALPH LANTION, HON. MEHOL K. SADAIN and HON. FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., The Commissioners of the Second Division, Commission on Elections, Manila; and WALTER J. ARAGONES & A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1353-MTJ) WALTER J. ARAGONES V. HON. HECTOR B. BARILLO, Municipal Trial Court, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, G.R. No. 159117, March 10, 2010Civil Procedure [Verification] - While Section 1, Rule 65 requires that the petition for certiorari be verified, this is not an absolute necessity where the material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of law. Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also," it is not mandatory. LEAH PALMA V. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 24 and PSYCHE ELENA AGUDO, G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010Civil Procedure [Service of Summons] - Other methods of service of summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus, if a resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in section 7 ( formerly Section 8), Rule 14; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. LEAH PALMA V. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 24 and PSYCHE ELENA AGUDO, G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010Criminal Procedure [Res Judicata] - It bears stressing that the doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two different concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (b) conclusiveness of judgment. The second concept conclusiveness of judgment states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. SPOUSES FERNANDO TORRES and IRMA TORRES V. AMPARO MEDINA and the EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF of the RTC of Quezon City, G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010

Special Civil Actions [Mandamus] - It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or to which a substantial doubt exists. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. FIDELA R. ANGELES V. The SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, and SENATOR TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., G.R. No. 142549,March 9, 2010

Provisional Remedies [Temporary Restraining Order] - Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order within a limited life of twenty (20) days from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary restraining order would be deemed automatically vacated. If no action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said twenty (20) days, the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary and the courts having no discretion to extend the same. The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute if issued by a regional trial court. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION V. VAL L. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 168203, March 9, 2010

Civil Procedure [Estoppel] - The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel." However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction. ATTY. RESTITUTO G. CUDIAMAT, ERLINDA P. CUDIAMAT and CORAZON D. CUDIAMAT V. BATANGAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC., and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, NASUGBU, BATANGAS, G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010

Criminal Procedure [Validity of Arrest] - The Court have consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground, before arraignment. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NELSON PALMA y HANGAD, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010Civil Procedure [Judicial Review] - The Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Absent such grave abuse of discretion, this Court shall not interfere with the electoral tribunals exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. REPRESENTATIVE ALVIN S. SANDOVAL (Lone District of Navotas-Malabon) V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JOSEPHINE VERONIQUE R. LACSON-NOEL, and HON. SPEAKER PROSPERO NOGRALES, G.R. No. 190067, March 9, 2010

Special Civil Actions [Mandamus] - Mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other PIO DELOS REYES (Deceased), represented by heirs FIDEL DELOS REYES, MAURO DELOS REYES and IRENE BONGCO (Deceased), represented by surviving spouse RODOLFO BONGCO V. HONORABLE WALDO Q. FLORES, in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President, HONORABLE RENE C. VILLA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Land Reform (formerly Department of Agrarian Reform), THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DINALUPIHAN BATAAN, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO) OF HERMOSA AND ORANI, BATAAN, and FORTUNATO QUIAMBAO, G.R. No. 168726, March 5, 2010

Civil Procedure [Kinds of Actions] - A real action, under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein. Such actions should be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. All other actions are personal and may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. The jurisdiction of the court below cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. SULTAN YAHYA "JERRY" M. TOMAWIS V. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, AMNA A. PUMBAYA, JALILAH A. MANGOMPIA, and RAMLA A. MUSOR, G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010

Civil Procedure [Findings of Facts of the Lower Courts] - Generally, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions. Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Between documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weight. HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by ELENITO LIM V. JULIET VILLA LIM, G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010Civil Procedure [Findings of Facts of the Lower Courts] - A petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law. As a rule, findings of fact of a trial judge, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule admits of only a few exceptions HUTAMA-RSEA/SUPERMAX PHILS., J.V. V. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION, represented by its President CELSO C. DIOKNO, G.R. No. 173181, March 3, 2010Civil Procedure [Verification; Certification against Non-Forum Shopping] - A party's representative, lawyer, or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. Acertification of non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading. It is true that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued is lodged in the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. However, it is settled that the president of a corporation may sign the verification and the certification of non-forum shopping. HUTAMA-RSEA/SUPERMAX PHILS., J.V. V. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION, represented by its President CELSO C. DIOKNO, G.R. No. 173181, March 3, 2010

Civil Procedure [Writ of Possession] - Ordinarily, a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. Thus, whenever the purchaser prays for a writ of possession, the trial court has to issue it as a matter of course. However, the obligation of the trial court to issue a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. It is not necessary to initiate an original action in order for the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property to acquire possession. Even if the application for the writ of possession was denominated as a "petition", it is in substance merely a motion. Indeed, any insignificant lapse in the certification on non-forum shopping filed by the MBTC did not render the writ irregular. The law does not require that a petition for a writ of possession may be granted only after documentary and testimonial evidence shall have been offered to and admitted by the court. THE PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., ROWENA LAYUG, MALOU MALVAR, MARILOU BARAQUIO, GARY SINLAO, LUZVIMINDA OCAMPO,MARIFE FERNANDEZ, FERNANDO VICTORIO, ERNESTO AGANON and RIZALINO MANGLICMOT, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR. V. THE METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST CO. G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010

Civil Procedure [Certification against Non-Forum Shopping] - Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance. A certification of the plaintiffs counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is the petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. However, there are instances when we treated compliance with the rule with relative liberality, especially when there are circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. Krizia Katrina Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. The Hon. Joselito C. Villarosa, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 66 of the RTC of Makati City and Fannie Torres-Ty , G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010

Civil Procedure [Prejudicial Question] - For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. Krizia Katrina Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. The Hon. Joselito C. Villarosa, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 66 of the RTC of Makati City and Fannie Torres-Ty , G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010Evidence [Alibi and Denials] - It is a well-settled principle in law that the defense of alibi is one of the weakest defenses available to an accused in a criminal case. However, the Court has, in more than one occasion, held that the defense of alibi may acquire commensurate strength where the witnesses have made no positive and proper identification of the offender. This is because the inherent weakness of alibi as a defense does not operate to relieve the prosecution of its responsibility to establish the identity of the offender by the same quantum of evidence required for proving the crime itself. Knowledge of a persons name is not necessary for proper identification. People of the Philippines v. Julian Pajes y Oponda and Miguel Paghunasan y Urbano , G.R. No. 184179, April 12, 2010

Civil Procedure (Newly Discovered Evidence] - Under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment. Quintin B. Saludaga and SPO2 Fiel E. Genio v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan,4th Division and the People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 184537, April 23, 2010Civil Procedure [Verification; Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping] - The Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. MEDISERV, INC., V. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th Division) and LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010Civil Procedure [Period of Appeal] - To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the "final order") denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41, Section 3. The aforesaid Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration was already the second attempt on the part of PCI Leasing to seek a reconsideration. It is, thus, in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. Under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, such motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, which does not toll the period within which an appeal may be taken.Incidentally, the Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons filed by PCI Leasing is non-litigious in nature, which does not require a hearing under the Rules, as the same could have been acted upon by the RTC without prejudicing the rights of the respondents. PCI LEASING and FINANCE, INC. V. ANTONIO C. MILAN, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of "A. MILAN TRADING," and LAURA M. MILAN, G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010

Civil Procedure [Appeals] - Since an order of dismissal by the trial court is a final order from which an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 can be taken,the petitioners should have taken this avenue against the RTC order instead of resorting to a petition for certiorari before the CA. Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an inappropriate mode of appeal. NEMESIO GOCO, LYDIA G. FABIAN, NATALIA BROTONEL, FLORA GAYOSO, BLEMIE SORIANO, ELPIDIA NAVALES, SERGIO ROMASANTA, CATALINA NAMIS and NANCY PAMATIGA, represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact, LYDIA G. FABIAN, ELPIDIA NAVALES and NATALIA BROTONELvs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. HICOBLINO CATLY, LOURDES CATLY and the REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO, G.R. No. 157449, April 6, 2010

Civil Procedure [[Appellate Jurisdiction over Quasi-Judicial Agencies] - While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court does not list petitioner as "among" the quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders, resolutions or awards are appealable to the appellate court, it is non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over petitioners judgments, orders, resolutions or awards. It is settled that the list of quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive.The employment of the word "among" clearly instructs so.Section 9 (1) of BP 129 granted the Court of Appeals (then known as the Intermediate Appellate Court) original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB)v.A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., G.R. No. 186450, April 14, 2010

Civil Procedure [Execution] - As a general rule, the writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed; an execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. Nonetheless, the Court has held that a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but extends as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. NARCISO TUMIBAY, RUPERTO TUMIBAY, ELENA TUMIBAY, EDUARDO TUMIBAY, CORAZON TUMIBAY, MANUELA SEVERINO VDA. DE PERIDA and GREGORIA DELA CRUZ, v. SPS. YOLANDA T. SORO and HONORIO SORO, SPS. JULITA T. STA. ANA and FELICISIMO STA. ANA, G.R. No. 152016, April 13, 2010

Civil Procedure [Counterclaim] - The rule in permissive counterclaim is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before the Court. In this case, respondent did not dispute the non-payment of docket fees. MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., represented in this case by his Attorney-in-fact ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO v. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010Civil Procedure [Summary Judgment] - When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts.Since the issues were limited to the damages claimed by the parties, summary judgment has been properly rendered in this case. MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., represented in this case by his Attorney-in-fact ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO v. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010Criminal Procedure [Res Judicata] - This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment. Under the first concept, res judicata absolutely bars any subsequent action when the following requisites concur: (a) the former judgment or order was final; (b) it adjudged the pertinent issue or issues on their merits; (c) it was rendered by a court that had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (d) between the first and the second actions, there was identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. Where no identity of causes of action but only identity of issues exists, res judicata comes under the second concept i.e., under conclusiveness of judgment. Under this concept, the rule bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving the same parties even if raised under different claims or causes of action. HACIENDA BIGAA, INC. v.EPIFANIO V. CHAVEZ (deceased), substituted by SANTIAGO V. CHAVEZ, G.R. No. 174160, April 20, 2010

Civil Procedure [Summary Procedure] - When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER v. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ, REINA COMANDANTE and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN and ELIZABETH PANGAN, G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010

Civil Procedure [Execution] - When an appeal had been duly perfected, execution of the judgment, whether wholly or partially, was not a matter of right, but of discretion provided good reasons therefor existed. The compelling grounds for the issuance of the writ must be stated in a special order after due hearing. Aside from the existence of good reasons, the rules also require that the motion for partial execution should have been filed while the trial court still had jurisdiction over the case. ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION AND FLORANTE DY v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, REGION 1, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY, SHERIFF VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN AND SPOUSES PAUL PELAEZ, JR. AND ROCELI MAMISAY PELAEZ, G.R. No. 167237, April 23, 2010Civil Procedure [Liberal Interpretation of Rules] - A litigant's failure to furnish his opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant dismissal of that appeal. In such an instance, all that is needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his opponent with a copy of his brief. Anent the failure to append a copy of the assailed judgment, instead of dismissing the appeal on that basis, it is more in keeping with equity to simply require the appellants to immediately submit a copy of the Decision of the lower court rather than punish litigants for the reckless inattention of their lawyers. TRINIDAD GO, joined by her husband, GONZALO GO, SR.v.VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES, ALICE CHAVESMEGA-INTEGRATED AGRO LIVESTOCK FARMS, INC., G.R. No. 182341, April 23, 2010Civil Procedure [Filing of Pleadings] - Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail, then the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It does not matter when the court actually receives the mailed pleading. Thus, in this case, as the pleading was filed by registered mail on July 27, 2007, within the reglementary period, it is inconsequential that the CA actually received the motion in October of that year.

As to the CAs dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that petitioner failed to attach a written explanation for non-personal filing, the Court finds the same improper. Iligan City, where petitioner resides and where her counsel holds office, and Cagayan de Oro City, where the concerned division of the CA is stationed, are separated by a considerable distance. The CA, in the exercise of its discretion, should have realized that it was indeed impracticable for petitioner to personally file the petition for review in Cagayan De Oro City. ALMA B. RUSSEL, v. TEOFISTA EBASAN and AGAPITO AUSTRIA, G.R. No. 184542, April 23, 2010Civil Procedure [Verification] - The purpose of the verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative. The requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith is neither jurisdictional nor does it render the pleading fatally defective. ALMA B. RUSSEL, v. TEOFISTA EBASAN and AGAPITO AUSTRIA, G.R. No. 184542, April 23, 2010

Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - Moreover, for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.Petitioners bare allegation that appeal from the judgment of the Board may not be adequate does not justify immediate resort to certiorari. Moreover, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR v. APRONIANO JOROLAN and HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) Chairman, New Corella, Davao del Norte, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010

Special Civil Actions [Ejectment] - Then as now, petitioner argues that respondents claim of prior possession is clearly negated by the fact that he had been in occupancy thereof since 1999. While prior physical possession is, admittedly, an indispensable requirement in forcible entry cases, the dearth of merit in petitioners position is, however, evident from the principle that possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Because possession can also be acquired by juridical acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession, e.g., donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory information titles and the like, it has been held that one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of the property at all times to be considered in possession. HUBERT NUEZv. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., through its representative, CESAR SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010

Special Civil Actions [Contempt] - Considering the foregoing, the SBMA officers may be considered to have acted in good faith when they refused to follow the TRO issued by the RTC. The SBMA officers' refusal to follow the court order was not contumacious but due to the honest belief that jurisdiction over the subject shipment remained with the BOC because of the existing warrant of seizure and detention against said shipment. Accordingly, these SBMA officers should not be held accountable for their acts which were done in good faith and not without legal basis. SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITYv.MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ and WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., both represented herein by HILDA M. BACANI, as their authorized representative, G.R. No. 160270, April 23, 2010Civil Procedures [Matters Raised for the First Time on Appeal] - The propriety of respondent Taroys preventive suspension was raised by respondents for the first time on appeal. The well-settled rule, which also applies in labor cases, is that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by the reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel the adoption of this rule. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. and RELY L. JALBUNAv.UNYON NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG GENESIS TRANSPORT (UMMGT), and JUAN TAROY, G.R. No. 182114, April 5, 2010

Evidence [Circumstantial Evidence] - While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESv.TIRSO SACE y MONTOYA, G.R. No. 178063, April 5, 2010Evidence [Res Gestae] - Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. All these requisites are present in this case. Sace had just been through a startling and gruesome occurrence, AAAs death. His admission was made while he was still under the influence of said startling occurrence and before he had an opportunity to concoct or contrive a story. In addition, he was still under the influence of alcohol at that time, having engaged in a drinking spree from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. that day. His confession concerned the rape and killing of AAA. Saces spontaneous statements made to private persons, not agents of the State or law enforcers, are not covered by the constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation and, as res gestae, admissible in evidence against him. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESv.TIRSO SACE y MONTOYA, G.R. No. 178063, April 5, 2010

Evidence [Alibi and Denials] - As to appellants defense of alibi, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.To establish alibi, an accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESV.JONJIE ESOY y HUNGOY, ROLANDO CIANO y SOLEDAD and ROGER BOLALACAO y DADIVAS, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010Evidence [Res Gestae] - Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, the victim or spectator to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. In the instant case, all the elements of res gestae are sufficiently established insofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance is concerned: (1) the principal act (res gestae) the robbery and stabbing of the victim is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, that is, within minutes after the victim was stabbed and his cellular phone was snatched; and (3) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances his cellular phone was stolen during the startling occurrence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESV.JONJIE ESOY y HUNGOY, ROLANDO CIANO y SOLEDAD and ROGER BOLALACAO y DADIVAS, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010Evidence [Admissions Against Interest] - Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness. Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, assisted by her husband, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, assisted by her husband, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS and FABIAN SANTOSv. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN and BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010Evidence [Documentary Evidence] - Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.Moreover, not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication.Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat.The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, assisted by her husband, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, assisted by her husband, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS and FABIAN SANTOSv. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN and BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010

Evidence [Admissions] - The Informations specifically alleged that the victim was a minor when she was raped by her own father. While the evidence of the prosecution consisted mainly of the victims testimony, the Court found that the express admission by the accused as regards the age of the victim sufficiently established her minority. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESV. ROGELIO ASIS y LACSON, G.R. No. 179935, April 19, 2010Evidence [Chain of Custody] - For the purpose of ensuring that the chain of custody is established, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 provides that non-compliance with Section 21 thereof does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESv.DARLENE QUIGOD y MIRANDA, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010

Special Proceedings [Writ of Amparo] - Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the records of the present case, we conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires. Because of these investigative shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case until a more meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence, is undertaken. EDITA T. BURGOS v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYP, et al./EDITA T. BURGOSv. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et al./EDITA T. BURGOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., et al., June 22, 2010, G.R. Nos. 183711/183812/183713.Special Proceedings [Habeas Corpus] - Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is neither actual nor effective restraint that would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted for. NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN v. JUDGE VIRGILIO V. MACARAIG, RTC, MANILA BRANCH, et al., June 29, 2010, G.R. No. 182497.Civil Procedure [Res Judicata] - The rule is that when material facts or questions, which were in issue in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. LEY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al. v. PHILIPPINES COMMERCIAL & INTERNATIONAL BANK, et al., June 23, 2010, G.R. No. 160841.Civil Procedure [Jurisdiction] - Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies; rules of procedure cannot. JULIAN FERNANDEZ v. RUFINO D. FULGUERAS, June 29, 2010, G.R. No. 178575.Special Civil Actions [Expropriation] - The taking of property under the CARL is a government exercise of the power of eminent domain. Since the determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial function, such determination cannot be made to depend on the existence of administrative proceedings of a similar nature. Land Bank of the Philippines Vs. Fortune Savings and Loan Association, Inc., represented by Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, June 29, 2010, G.R. No. 177511.Civil Procedure [Jurisdiction] - The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. In promulgating the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised. MINERVA GOMEZ-CASTILLO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. , June 22, 2010, G.R. No. 187231.Special Civil Actions [Quo Warranto] - A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. Any voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking, not a contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent may be unseated. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al./LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMMISSION PON ELECTIONS, et al. , June 22, 2010, G.R. Nos. 179431-32/G.R. No. 180443.Special Proceedings [Settlement of Estate] - The order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF CRISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY, EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III v. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY , June 16, 2010, G.R. No. 183053.Special Civil Actions [Ejectment] - In an ejectment case mandated to be tried under summary procedure, the paramount consideration is its expeditious and inexpensive resolution without regard to technicalities. Victorias Milling Company, Inc. Vs. CA and International Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,June 29, 2010, G.R. No. 168062.Special Civil Actions [Contempt] - In criminal contempt, the proceedings are regarded as criminal and the rules of criminal procedure apply. What is more, it is generally held that the State or respondent Republic is the real prosecutor in such a case. The grant, therefore, of immunity to petitioner Disini against being compelled to testify is ultimately a grant of immunity from being criminally prosecuted by the State for refusal to testify, something that falls within the express coverage of the immunity given him. Jesus P. Disini Vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al., June 22, 2010, G.R. No. 180564.Civil Procedure [Extrinsic Fraud] - Moreover, since petitioner claimed that there was extrinsic fraud committed by respondent bank's counsel, she could have filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 within the period provided for by the Rules of Court, but she did not. Section 2, Rule 47 clearly states that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground for annulment of order if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Thus, extrinsic fraud is effectively barred if it could have been raised as a ground in an available remedial measure. SPOUSES OSCAR ARCENAS and DOLORES ARCENAS vs. QUEEN CITY DEVELOPMENT BANK and COURT OF APPEALS (Nineteenth Division), G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010Civil Procedures [Appeals] - It is well-settled that a party who has not appealed from a Decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from. SPI did not appeal, thus it cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the Decision of the court below. It can only advance any argument that it may deem necessary to defeat petitioners claim or to uphold the Decision that is being disputed, and it can assign errors in its brief if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court a quo.These assigned errors, in turn, may be considered by the appellate court solely to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds, but not for the purpose of reversing or modifying the judgment in SPI's favor and giving it other reliefs. SELWYN F. LAO and EDGAR MANANSALA vs. SPECIAL PLANS, INC., G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010Civil Procedure [Findings of Fact of the Lower Courts] - Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties. A review of such findings by the Court is not warranted except for highly meritorious circumstances when: (1) the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) a lower courts inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record. ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, SR. JOSEPHINI AMBATALI, SFIC, and ROSALINDA TABUGO vs. JAYSON MIRANDA, represented by his father, RODOLFO S. MIRANDA, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010Provisional Remedies [Injunction] - Two (2) requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. Particularly, in actions involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie only after the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto by a proper action for the purpose. To authorize a temporary injunction, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. Preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse. These principles are equally relevant to actions seeking permanent injunction. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, represented herein by DIRECTOR GENERAL LILIA B. DE LIMA vs. JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES, ROSE CARANTES, and all the other HEIRS OF MAXIMINO CARANTES, G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010Civil Procedure [Scope of Review of the Supreme Court] - Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly alleged in the appropriate pleading. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides for a given set of facts drawn from the evidence presented. Stated differently, there should be nothing in dispute as to the state of facts; the issue to be resolved is merely the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the said facts. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the probative value of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, then the issue is necessarily factual. MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC. vs. CECILE H. CHENG, MC FOODS, INC., and RAMON SABARRE, G.R. No. 178523, June 16, 2010Civil Procedure [Withdrawal of Appeal] - At the time petitioner moved to withdraw her appeal, respondents had not yet filed their brief, hence, the grant thereof by the appellate court was in order. NELLY BAUTISTA vs.SERAPH MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., G.R. No. 174039, June 29, 2010Civil Procedure [Scope of Review of the Supreme Court] - Where the real issue involves the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. RUDOLFO I. BELUSO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, G.R. No. 180711, June 22, 2010Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - While petitioners would insist that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, granting the forfeiture of the performance bond among others, amount to nothing more than errors of judgment, correctible by appeal. When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari. ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC., CERALINDA, INC., CYBER CERAMICS, INC. and MILLENNIUM, INC. vs. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. and BUKLURAN PUROK II RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June 16, 2010Civil Procedure [Effect of Dismissal] - A ruling on a motion to dismiss, issued without trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits. Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. In other words, unless the court states that the dismissal is without prejudice, the dismissal should be understood as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, represented by HIS HEIRS: ROSALIA, ELEUTERIO, JOE, ERNESTO, HARRISON, ALL SURNAMED DE GUZMAN; and GINA DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 182507, June 18, 2010Civil Procedure [Execution] - A judgment debt is enforced by the levy and sale of the debtors property. The issuance of the final certificate of sale to the purchaser at the execution sale is a mere formality upon the debtors failure to redeem the property within the redemption period. JOSE DELOS REYES vs. JOSEPHINE ANNE B. RAMNANI, G.R. No. 169135, June 18, 2010Civil Procedure [Forum Shopping] - Nonetheless, the mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum shopping. The test is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. The actions must also raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.Elsewise stated, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Applying the test for forum shopping, the consecutive filing of the action for certiorari and the action for mandamus did not violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions involved the same parties, because they were based on different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were different. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010 & LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, CINCHONA C. GONZALES and ARMI JANE R. BORJE, G.R. No. 180443Provisional Remedies [Injunction] - Two requisites must exist to warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, namely: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. ANGELES CITY vs. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORPORATION and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 57, ANGELES CITY, G.R. No. 166134, June 29, 2010Civil Procedure [Motions] - The three-day notice rule is not absolute. FAUSTO R. PREYSLER, JR. vs. MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010Civil Procedure [Notice of Hearing] - The requirement of notice of time and hearing in the pleading filed by a party is necessary only to apprise the other of the actions of the former. FAUSTO R. PREYSLER, JR. vs. MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010Civil Procedure [Parties in an Action] - The State is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party to an action where no positive act shall be required from it or where no obligation shall be imposed upon it, such as in the case at bar. Neither would it be an indispensable party if none of its properties shall be divested nor any of its rights infringed. OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN AND SANGGUNIANG PAMBARANGAY OF BARANGAY VITALEZ, PARAAQUE CITY, TERESITA A. GATCHALIAN, ENRICO R. ESGUERRA, ERNESTO T. PRACALE, JR., MANUEL M. ARGOTE, CONRADO M. CANLAS, JOSEPHINE S. DAUIGOY, ALLAN L. GONZALES, ESTER C. ASEHAN, MANUEL A. FUENTES, and MYRNA P. ROSALES vs. MARIO D. EBIO AND HIS CHILDREN/HEIRS namely, ARTURO V. EBIO, EDUARDO V. EBIO, RENATO V. EBIO, LOURDES E. MAGTANGOB, MILA V. EBIO, and ARNEL V. EBIO, G.R. No. 178411, June 23, 2010Provisional Remedies [Injunction] - A perusal of FDCs complaint easily reveals that it is an action for injunction based on an alleged violation of contractthe MOA between the parties. As such, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over FDCs complaint anchored on Sec. 19, Chapter II of BP 129, which grants the RTCs original exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Evidently, a complaint for injunction or breach of contract is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Moreover, the RTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions under Sec. 21 of BP 129. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR. vs. FONTANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 187972, June 29, 2010Evidence [Alibi] - As consistently enunciated by this Court, the established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. People of the Philippines v. Roberto Asis and Julius Pearanda, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010

Criminal Procedure [Res Judicata; Exceptions] - The rule barring an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is, however, not absolute. The following are the recognized exceptions thereto: (i) when the prosecution is denied due process of law; and (ii) when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused demurrer to evidence. People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David and Rogelio L. Luis , G.R. No. 164577, July 5, 2010

Evidence [Testimonial Evidence] - Testimonies of child-victims are almost always given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. People of the Philippines v. Marcos Quiros y Sembrano, G.R. No. 188600, July 13, 2010

Evidence [Circumstantial Evidence] - Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos , G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010

Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - Since the accused had not presented evidence of ill-motive on the part of the witnesses to testify falsely against him, their (witnesses) testimonies can be believed. People of the Philippines v. Gerardo Rollan y Rey, G.R. No. 175835 July 13, 2010

Civil Procedure [Findings of Facts of the Lower Courts] - As a rule, we accord the greatest respect for the findings of the lower courts, especially the evaluation by the trial judge who had the distinct opportunity to directly hear and observe the witnesses and their testimonies. Giovani Serrano y cervantes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010Criminal Procedure [Preliminary Investigation] - The New Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings [in the preliminary investigation] the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics. Alfredo T. Romualdez v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the Republic of the PhilippinesG.R. No. 161602, July 13, 2010

Evidence [Credibility of Witness] -The general rule is that passing judgment upon the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial courts since the latter are in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves during the trial. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as when facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. People of the Philippines v. Rose Nandi y Sali , G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010Civil Procedure [Forum Shopping] - Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also involve the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. People of the Philippines v. Joseph "Jojo" V. Gray, Francis B. Greay, and Court of Appeals-Cebu City, Eighteenth Division, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010

Criminal Procedure [Validity of Arrest] - It has been consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Salvador Valdez Rebellion v. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010

Criminal Procedure [Withdrawal of Information] - It bears emphasizing that when the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, or to deny the said motion, it does so not out of compliance to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice, but in sound and faithful exercise of its judicial prerogative. The trial court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The prior determination of probable cause by the trial court does not in any way bar a contrary finding upon reassessment of the evidence presented before it. In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the reasons of the trial for granting the motion for the withdrawal of the Information. Antonio B. Ramos (deceased), substitured by his surviving heirs, namely Ma. Margarita A. Ramos, Antonio A. Ramos, Ma. Regina Ramos De Dios, Jose Vicente A. Ramos, Ma. Pomona Ramos Ko The and Oscar Emerito A. Ramos v. People of the Philippines and Rogerio H. Escobal

G.R. No. 171565, July 13, 2010

Civil Procedure [Transfer of Interest] - In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Heirs of Francisca Medrano, namely Yolanda R. Medrano, et al. V. Estanislao De Vera,August 9, 2010, G.R. No. 165770

Civil Procedure [Appeals] - Rule 45 provides that an appeal by certiorari from the judgments or final orders or resolutions of the appellate court is by a verified petition for review on certiorari. Contrary to respondent's claim that petitioner in this petition merely alleges that the CA abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal, we find that petitioner also imputes grave error committed by the CA in rendering its assailed decision finding that the appeal was not perfected. Jerry Ong V. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp.

August 18, 2010, G.R. No. 175116.

Special Civil Actions [Expropriation] - The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation. The heirs of Mateo Pidacan and Romana Bigo, namely:Pacita Pidacan Vda de Zubiri, et al. V. Air Transporation office, represented by its Acting Director Beinvenido Manga, August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 186192

Criminal Procedure [Validity of Arrest] - Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest before her arraignment. Neither did she take steps to quash the Information on such ground. Verily, she raised the issue of warrantless arrest as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired on the occasion thereof for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court. By such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest. Susan Esquillo y Romines V. People of the Philippines, August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 182010

Evidence [Technical Rules of Evidence] - Executive Order No. 14, series of 1986, issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino, provided that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be strictly applied to cases involving ill-gotten wealth Republic of the Philippines V. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al., August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 159275

Civil Procedure [Execution] - That the writ of execution had already been satisfied does not perforce clothe it with validity. As we have earlier discussed, a writ of execution may only be issued after final judgment. Such a writ issued without final judgment is manifestly void and of no legal effect. It is as if the writ was not issued at all. Seizure of property under a void writ of execution amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law. This Court may direct that whatever action taken under such a void writ be undone. Otherwise, we would be condoning a patent violation of a party's right to due process and allowing one party to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. Continental Watchman and Security Agency, Inc. V. National Food Authority, August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 171015

Criminal Procedure [Double Jeopardy] - It is beyond cavil that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor that it is abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. What remains for our resolution is whether the case may be remanded to the RTC without violating respondents right against double jeopardy. On this question, we find the answer to be in the affirmative. Heirs of Jane Honrales V. Jonathan Honrales / People of the Philippines and Heirs of Jane Honrales V. Jonathan Honrales, August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657

Civil Procedure [Appeals; Procedural Requirements] - Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petitions dismissal. Saint Louis University, Inc. V. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias, August 3, 2010, G.R. No. 187104Civil Procedure [Execution] - SEC. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. - Real property sold as provided in the last preceding section, or any part thereof separately, may be redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the following persons: A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed a redemptioner. Ramon Torres and Jessie Belarmino V. Spouses Vihinzky Alamag and Aida A. Ngo August 3, 2010, G.R. No. 169569.

Criminal Procedure [Petition for Review] - In order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court. Leonardo U Flores V. Hon. Raul S. Gonzales, August 3, 2010, G.R. No. 188197

Civil Procedure [Execution] - As a general rule, a writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed; an execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. The settled general principle is that a writ of execution must conform strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, and may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. However, it is equally settled that possession is an essential attribute of ownership. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated partys claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership. Bernardo De Leon Vs. Public Estates Authority Substituted by the City of Paraaque, Ramon Arellano, Jr., Ricardo Pena and Reymund Orpilla/Public Estates Authority (now Philippine Reclamation Authority) substituted by the City of Paraaque V. Hon. Selma Palacio Alaras, in her capacity as the acting Presiding Judge of Branch 135, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and Bernardo De Leon, August 3, 2010, G.R. No. 181970/G.R. No. 182678

Civil Procedure [Motion to Dismiss] - When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action under Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, such fact must be determined from the allegations of the complaint. In a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the plaintiffs complaint for the purpose of resolving the motion. The general rule is that the allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant, if, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist. HEIRS OF ANTONIO SANTOS ET AL. V. HEIRS OF CRISPULO BARAMO ET AL., August 8, 2010, G.R. No. 151454

Criminal Procedure [Petition for Review] - In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that Crespo did not foreclose the power or authority of the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases. The Court recognized in Crespo that the action of the investigating fiscal or prosecutor in the preliminary investigation is subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor. Thereafter, it may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice. Time and again, this Court has held that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not without exception. Based on the previous discussion, the actions of the Regional State Prosecutor, being patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the same constitutes an exception to the rule on administrative remedies. Filemon A. Verzano, Jr. V. Francis Vitor D. Paro, August 8, 2010, G.R. No. 171643

Civil Procedure [Mistake of Counsel] - The Court has consistently held that the mistake or negligence of a counsel in the area of procedural technique binds the client unless such mistake or negligence of counsel is so gross or palpable that would require the courts to step in and accord relief to the client who suffered thereby. Without this doctrinal rule, there would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned. Gilbert Urma, et al. V. Hon. Orlando Beltran, et al., August 8, 2010, G.R. No. 180836Civil Procedure [Enforcement of Judgments] - The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgment by action is precisely to prevent the winning parties from sleeping on their rights. This Court cannot just set aside the statute of limitations into oblivion every time someone cries for equity and justice. Indeed, if eternal vigilance is the price of safety, one cannot sleep on one's right for more than a 10th of a century and expect it to be preserved in pristine purity. ENESTO VILLEZA V. GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES INC. ET AL., August 8, 2010, G.R. No. 182937

Civil Procedure [Jurisdiction] - As provided under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 1008, also known as the Construction Industry Arbitration Law, the CIAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines and all that is needed for the CIAC to acquire jurisdiction is for the parties to agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration. William Golangco Construction Corporation V. Ray Burton Development Corporation, August 9, 2010, G.R. No. 163582

Civil Procedure [Request for Admission] - A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting partys pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said partys cause of action or defense. Socorro Limos, et al. V. Sps. Francisco and Arwenia Odones, August 11, 2010, G.R. No. 186979

Civil Procedure [Appeals] - The right to appeal is not a natural right. It is also not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, August 11, 2010, G.R. No. 167606

Evidence [Technical Rules; Not Applicable] - It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases. Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. Procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases in which the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in suppletory manner. Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of non-compliance with the process required. Arnold F. Anib V. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI) and or Rhogie Feliciano, August 16, 2010, G.R. No. 190216

Special Civil Actions [Expropriation] - While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO, ET AL., August 18, 2010, G.R. No. 183688

Criminal Procedure [Sufficiency of Complaint] - The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition or complaint. To determine whether the complaint states a cause of action, all documents attached thereto may, in fact, be considered, particularly when referred to in the complaint. We emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations in the complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed documents should only be taken in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. VICTORINA ALICE LIM LAZARO V. BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL INC., August 23, 2010, G.R. No. 182779

Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - It is settled that the testimony of a single yet credible and trustworthy witness suffices to support a conviction. This principle finds more compelling application when the lone witness is the victim himself whose direct and positive identification of his assailants is almost always regarded with indubitable credibility, owing to the natural tendency of victims to seek justice, and thus strive to remember the faces of their malefactors and the manner in which they committed the crime. Freddie Cabildo V. People of the Philippines, August 23, 2010, G.R. No. 189971

Special Civil Actions [Ejectment] - When exigencies in the case warrant it, the appellate court may stay the writ of execution issued by the RTC in an action for ejectment if there are circumstances necessitating such action. La Campana Development Corporation V. Arturo Ledesma, et al., August 25, 2010, G.R. No. 154152

Criminal Procedure [Institution of Complaint] - All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case. Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation. Jose Antonio C. Leviste V. Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, et al., August 3, 2010, G.R. No. 182677Civil Procedure [Accion Reinvidicatoria] - In order that an action for the recovery of title may prosper, it is indispensable, in accordance with the precedents established by the courts, that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not only his ownership of the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same. However, although the identity of the thing that a party desires to recover must be established, if the plaintiff has already proved his right of ownership over a tract of land, and the defendant is occupying without right any part of such tract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to establish the precise location and extent of the portions occupied by the defendant within the plaintiffs property. Spouses Elegio Caego and Dolia Caezo v. Spouses Apolinario and Consorcia L. Bautista, G.R. No. 170189, September 1, 2010Civil Procedure [Survival of Action] - The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained of affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental. Memoracion Z. Cruz, represented by Edgardo Cruz v. Oswaldo Z. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010Civil Procedure [Summons] - It is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendants regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in charge. Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. v. Ricardo F. Consulta, G.R. No. 183182, September 1, 2010Provisional Remedies [Injunction] - Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. Nelson Jenosa and his son Nio Carlo Jenosa, et al. v. Rev. Fr. Jose Rene C. Delariarte, O.S.A. etc., et al., G.R. No. 172138, September 8, 2010Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioners have 60 days from receipt of the Order denying their Motion to Dismiss to file the petition.

Petitioners' procedural shortcut cannot be countenanced. The period within which to file a petition for certiorari to assail the RTC's denial of petitioners' Motion to Dismiss had already lapsed on November 25, 2003, thus, petitioners' filing of their Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Supplemental Petition of the assailed CA Decision on December 19, 2003 and sought the resolution of whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied their Motion to Dismiss would indeed extend the period to assail such Order. Chang Ik Jin and Korean Christian Businessmen Association, Inc. v. Choi Sung Bong, G.R. No. 166358, September 8, 2010Civil Procedure [Jurisdiction] - The CIAC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes may involve government or private contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not limited to violation of specifications for materials and workmanship; violation of the terms of agreement; interpretation and/or application of contractual time and delays; maintenance and defects; payment, default of employer or contractor and changes in contract cost.

Excluded from the coverage of this law are disputes arising from employer-employee relationships which shall continue to be covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. ANSCOR Land, Inc., G.R. No. 177240, September 8, 2010Civil Procedure [Perfection of Appeal] - While the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds is concededly frowned upon, it bears emphasizing that the procedural requirements of the rules on appeal are not harmless and trivial technicalities that litigants can just discard and disregard at will. Neither being a natural right nor a part of due process, the rule is settled that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, in fact, not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Considering that they are requirements which cannot be trifled with as mere technicality to suit the interest of a party, failure to perfect an appeal in the prescribed manner has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. J. Tiosejo Investment Corporation v. Sps. Benjamin and Eleanor Ang, G.R. No. 174149, September 8, 2010

Civil Procedure [Pre-Trial] - As the rule now stands, if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial, a default order is no longer issued. Instead, the trial court may allow the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence ex parte and the court can decide the case based on the evidence presented by plaintiff. The Philippine American Life and General, Insurance Company v. Joseph T. Enario, G.R. No. 182075, September 15, 2010Criminal Procedure [Arraignment] - If the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause cannot bar the filing of the corresponding information, then neither can it bar the arraignment of the accused, which in the normal course of criminal procedure logically follows the filing of the information.

An arraignment is that stage where, in the mode and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. The accused is formally informed of the charges against him, to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise known as the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, the court must proceed with the arraignment of an accused within 30 days from the filing of the information or from the date the accused has appeared before the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. Brig Gen. (Ret.) Jose Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172476-99, September 15, 2010Civil Procedure [Hierarchy of Courts] - The policy on the hierarchy of courts, which petitioners indeed failed to observe, is not an iron-clad rule. For indeed the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, G.R. No. 176657, September 1, 2010Provisional Remedies [Injunction] - Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The application of the injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, G.R. No. 176657, September 1, 2010Civil Procedure [Withdrawal of Counsel] -The CA categorically stated that, on the basis of ACCRAs withdrawal as counsel for the respondent and ACCRAs manifestation, all pleadings and papers filed by ACCRA on behalf of the respondent were considered withdrawn and expunged from the records. Fruehauf Electronics, Phils., Inc. Vs. Court of Appeals, et al. / Fruehauf Electronics, Phils., Inc. v. Philips Semiconductors, Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161162/G.R. No. 166436 September 8, 2010Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - Petitions for review under Rule 43 specifically cover decisions rendered by the SSC. But this applies only to SSC decisions where the remedy of appeal is available. Here, considering that the law regards the kind of penalty the SSC imposed on Laurel already final, she had no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the decision of that body. Provided the SSC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the decision against her, Laurel can avail herself of the remed