CIVIL PROCEDURE

MWSS v. LGU Quezon City DOCTRINE:

It is doubtful whether the Court of Appeals could apply the same
G.R. No. 194388, rationale when the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts is invoked. In
November 7, 2018 any case, it has full discretion on whether to give due course to any
petition for certiorari directly filed before it. In this case, it allowed
petitioner's direct resort to it on the ground that the issue presented
was a pure question of law. No error can be ascribed to it for passing
upon the issue.
Marantan v. Department of DOCTRINES:
Justice Direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari is allowed only for special and important reasons that must
G.R. No. 206354, Date:13 be clearly and specifically set out in the Petition. Grave abuse of
March 2019 discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is precisely the
scope of a petition for certiorari.

This case is no such exception that it would merit a direct resort to

this Court. This Court fails to see how public welfare, public policy,
or the broader interest of justice demands the exercise of our
jurisdiction here. In the same vein, this Court does not see why
petitioner's prayer could not have been granted by the Court of
Appeals, which has concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, this case is
dismissible due to petitioner's failure to adhere to the rule on judicial
hierarchy.

A petition for certiorari, pertaining to the regularity of a preliminary

investigation, becomes moot after an information is filed and a trial
court issues an arrest warrant upon finding probable cause against
the accused.
Intramuros Administration v. DOCTRINE:
Offshore Construction The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not inviolable, and the SC has
Development Co. provided several exceptions to the doctrine. One of these exceptions
is the exigency of the situation being litigated.
G.R. No. 196795,
March 7, 2018 Physical possession, or de facto possession, is the sole issue to be
resolved in ejectment proceedings. Regardless of the claims or
defenses raised by a defendant, a MeTC has jurisdiction over an
ejectment complaint once it has been shown that the requisite
jurisdictional facts have been alleged.
Chiquita Brands, Inc vs DOCTRINE:
Omelito The doctrine on hierarchy of courts prohibits "parties from directly
resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower
G.R. 189102; courts." This rule is founded upon judicial economy and practical
June 7, 2017 considerations. On the one hand, it allows this Court to devote its
time and attention to those matters falling within its exclusive
jurisdiction. It also "prevent[s] the congestion of th[is] Court's
dockets." On the other hand, it "ensures that every level of the

| 4F – 19’20 | 1
 judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient
manner." The doctrine on hierarchy of courts was designed to
promote order and efficiency.
Aala v. Uy DOCTRINE:
Concurrence of jurisdiction does not give parties unfettered
G.R. No. G.R. No. 202781, discretion as to the choice of forum. The doctrine on hierarchy of
Date:January 10, 2017 courts is determinative of the appropriate venue where petitions for
extraordinary writs should be filed. Parties cannot randomly select
the court or forum to which their actions will be directed.
Quezon City PTCA v. DOCTRINE:
Department of Education The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain
if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
G.R. No. 188720, fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and
February 23, 2016 should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the
first instance.
Presidential Decree No. 1271 DOCTRINE:
Committee v. De Guzman The doctrine of the “law of the case” provides that questions of law
previously determined by a court will generally govern a case
G.R. No. 187291 & 187334, through all its subsequent stages where “the determination has
December 5, 2016 already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort.”

Amoguis v. Ballado DOCTRINE:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by
G.R. No. 189626, law. It cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be raised at
August 20, 2018 any time in the proceedings, whether during trial or on appeal. The
edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not an exception to the rule on
jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case will not acquire jurisdiction because of estoppel.
Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated as a waiver of a
party's right to raise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of equity. It is
only when the circumstances in Tijam are present that a waiver or
an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is appreciated.
Philippine National DOCTRINES:
Construction Corp. v. Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is
Asiavest Merchant Bankers inconvenient.'" This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives
(M) Berhad courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it
is not the most convenient forum and the... parties may seek redress
G.R. No. 172301 in another one. On the other hand, courts may choose to assume
August 19, 2015 jurisdiction subject to the following requisites: "(1) that the Philippine
Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that
the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law... and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is
likely to have power to enforce its decision."
Rule 1 – General Provisions
Dela Cruz v. National Police DOCTRINE:
Commission Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost respect
and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of
cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of
G.R. No. 215545,

| 4F – 19’20 | 2
 January 7, 2019 rival claims and in the administration of justice. There have been some
instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of
the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal interpretation
and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in
proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.
Rule 2 – Cause of Action
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas DOCTRINE:
v. Spouses Ledesma A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission committed
by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff."
G.R. No. 211176, Elements of Causes of Action are: (1) [T]he existence of a legal right
February 6, 2019 in the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty on the part of the defendant;
and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of plaintiffs
right with consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he
may maintain an action for the recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.
Guillermo v. Philippine DOCTRINE:
Information Agency To determine the sufficiency of a cause of action in a motion to
dismiss, only the facts alleged in the complaint should be considered,
G.R. No. 223751, in relation to whether its prayer may be granted. Additionally, in order
March 15, 2017 to sufficiently state a cause of action, the Complaint should have
alleged facts showing that the trial court could grant its prayer based
on the strength of its factual allegations.
Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions
Marcelino Florete, Jr., and DOCTRINE:
Maria and Raul Muyco v. There are two consequences of a finding on appeal that indispensable
Rofelio Florete, Imelda parties have not been joined. First, all subsequent actions of the lower
Florete, Diamel courts are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the case
Corporation, Rogelio should be remanded to the trial court for the inclusion of indispensable
Florete, Jr., and Margaret parties. It is only upon the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with an order to
Florete join indispensable parties that the case may be dismissed.

G.R. No. 174909 and

177275, January 20, 2016
GSIS Family Bank Employees
Union vs. Villanueva
G.R. No. 210773,:
January 23, 2019
DOCTRINE:
The Governance Commission was created under Republic Act No.
10149 and it is attached to the Office of the President. The Governance
Commission possesses neither judicial nor quasi-judicial powers thus,
it cannot review or settle actual controversies or conflicting rights
between dueling parties and enforce legally demandable rights. It is not
a tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that may
properly be the subject of a petition for certiorari.

Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that parties in interest

without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Roxas v. Republic Real Estate DOCTRINE:
Corp

| 4F – 19’20 | 3
 Upon execution, this Court's decision cannot be amended by the trial
G.R. No. 208205, court or the sheriff. Absent an order of remand, we cannot allow
June 1, 2016 attempts to substantially or materially alter the terms of our final and
executory judgment.
Law Firm of Laguesma DOCTRINE:
Magsalin Consulta and Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Gastardo vs. Commission on has a reglementary period of 60 days from receipt of denial of the
Audit motion for reconsideration. The Constitution, however, specifies that
the reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or rulings
G.R. No. 185544, of the constitutional commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of
January 13, 2015 the decision, order, or ruling.

A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or

injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
in interest.
Caravan Travel and Tours DOCTRINE:
International, Inc. v. A plaintiff exercising substitute parental authority, and who suffered
Ermilinda Abejar actual loss, is a real party in interest in a complaint for damages for the
death of her niece.
G.R. No. 170631,
February 10, 2016
Rule 4 – Venue of Actions
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum DOCTRINE:
Corp. v. Royal Ferry Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional
Services, Inc. impediment. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, while venue
is a matter of procedural law. To determine the venue of an
G.R. No.188146, insolvency proceeding, the residence of a corporation should be the
February 1, 2017 actual place where its principal office has been located for six (6)
months before the filing of the petition.
Hygienic Packaging Corp. vs. DOCTRINE:
Nutri-Asia, Inc. The venue for the collection of sum of money case is governed by Rule
4, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. Unless the parties enter into a written
agreement on their preferred venue before an action is instituted, the
G.R. No. 201302,
plaintiff may commence his or her action before the trial court of the
January 23, 2019
province or city either where he or she resides, or where the defendant
resides. If the party is a corporation, its residence is the province or city
where its principal place of business is situated as recorded in its
Articles of Incorporation.
Rule 6 – Kinds of Pleadings
Development Bank of the DOCTRINE:
Philippines v. Clarges Realty The admission of a third-party complaint lies within the sound discretion
Corporation of the trial court. If leave to file a third-party complaint is denied, then
the proper remedy is to file a separate case, not to insist on the
G.R.No. 170060; admission of the third-party complaint all the way up to the Supreme
August 17, 2016 Court.

| 4F – 19’20 | 4
 Rule 7 – Parts of Pleading
Malixi v. Baltazar
G.R. No. 208224,
November 22, 2017
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Apo Cement
Corp.
G.R. No. 193381,
:February 8, 2017
City of Taguig vs City of
Makati
G.R. No. 208393;
June 15, 2016
In Re: Ferrer
A.C. No. 8037, February 17,
2016
Ortigas & Co., Limited
Partnership v. Velasco
G.R. Nos. 109645, 112564,
128422 & 128911,
: January 21, 2015
Stronghold Insurance
Company, Inc. v. Spouses
Stroem
| 4F – 19’20 |
DOCTRINE:
Forum shopping exists whenever a party repetitively avails of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively,
all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by,
some other court. Forum shopping, in the concept of res judicata, is
also applicable to judgments or decisions of administrative agencies
performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions
DOCTRINE:
Verification; The amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 entirely removed
any reference to “belief” as basis.—The amendment to Section 4,
Rule 7 entirely removed any reference to “belief” as basis. This is to
ensure that the pleading is anchored on facts and not on imagination
or speculation, and is filed in good faith. In Go v. Court of Appeals,
531 SCRA 158 (2007): Mere belief is insufficient basis and negates
the verification which should be on the basis of personal knowledge
or authentic records. Verification is required to secure an assurance
that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or
are true and correct and not merely speculative.
DOCTRINE:
Forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more
suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in
order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to
grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or
increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or
action.
DOCTRINE:
There is forum shopping when a party repetitively avails of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively,
all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some
other court.
DOCTRINE:
Forum shopping is defined as, “when a party repetitively avails of
several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and
the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court.”
DOCTRINE:
There is forum shopping when: as a result of an adverse opinion in
one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal
or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect
to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations
5
 G.R. No. 204689, Date: commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is
January 21, 2015 pending.

Fuji Television Network, Inc. DOCTRINE:

vs. Arlene S. Espiritu The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not
jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form
G.R. No. 204944-45, Date: of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render
December 3, 2014 the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure
an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct
and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and
that the pleading is filed in good faith.
Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals Inc. DOCTRINES:
The trial court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties'
G.R. No. 172505, Date: October silence on the matter. The failure of the parties to raise the matter of
1, 2014 jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties.
The assailed decision is void, considering that it originates from a void
decision of the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter.

The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in
one case amounts to res judicata in another. Thus, there is forum
shopping when the following elements are present: (a) identity of
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites are also
constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.
Rule 9 – Effect of Failure to Plead
Spouses Manuel vs. Ong DOCTRINE:
A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the
G.R. No. 205249, October 15, presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to be an accurate and
2014 exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps
undertaken by a sheriff.

Three requisites must be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant

the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer and
these are:
1. it must be made by motion under oath by one that has
knowledge of the facts;
2. it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; and

| 4F – 19’20 | 6
 3. there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious
defense.
Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. v. DOCTRINE:
Chiongbian Dismissal on the ground of "failure to state a cause of action" may
operate as res judicata on a subsequent case involving the same
G.R. No. 197530, Date: July 9, parties, subject matter, and causes of action, provided that the order of
2014 dismissal actually ruled on the issues raised. What appears to be
essential to a judgment on the merits is that it be a reasoned decision,
which clearly states the facts and the law on which it is based.
Moncayo Integrated Small-
Scale Miners Association, DOCTRINE:
Inc. vs. Southeast Litis pendencia exists when the following elements are present: (a) the
Mindanao Gold Mining identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in
both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
G.R. Nos.149638 & 149916, relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two
Date: December 10, 2014 cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.

The existence of litis pendencia also means that the rule against forum
shopping was violated.
Rule 10 – Amended and Suplemental Pleadings
Republic of the Philippines v. DOCTRINE:
Sandiganbayan, Et. al. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities that can be disregarded
at whim by the parties or by our courts. Neither should they be
G.R. No. 195295, Date: applied so mechanically without any appreciation of their purpose
October 5, 2016 and object.
Rule 13 – Filing and Service of Pleadings
Bracero v. Arcelo DOCTRINE:
Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states in part that "[i]f any
G.R. No. 212496, March 18, party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made
2015 upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party
himself is ordered by the court." Notice sent directly to the client is
not notice in law. Nevertheless, this rule admits of exceptions.
Rule 14 - Summons
Aurora N. De Pedro vs. DOCTRINE:
Romasan Development Regardless of the type of action - whether it is in personam, in rem
Corporation or quasi in rem - the preferred mode of service of summons is
personal service. To avail themselves of substituted service,
G.R. No. 194751, Date: courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions
November 26, 2014 and a showing that the defendant cannot be served despite
diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff's return, which
contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity,
and on this basis, the court may allow substituted service. Should
the sheriff's return be wanting of these details, substituted service
will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve
summons was presented. Failure to serve summons will mean

| 4F – 19’20 | 7
 that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. However, the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance.
Spouses Manuel vs. Ong DOCTRINE:
A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the
G.R. No. 205249, October 15, presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to be an accurate and
2014 exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps
undertaken by a sheriff.

Three requisites must be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant

the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer and
these are:
1. it must be made by motion under oath by one that has
knowledge of the facts;
2. it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; and
3. there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious
defense.
Gatmaytan v. Dolor DOCTRINE:
When a party is represented and has appeared by counsel, service
G.R. No. 198120, February 20, shall, as a rule, be made upon his or her counsel. Moreover, when a
2017 party's counsel serves a notice of change in address upon a court,
and the court acknowledges this change, service of papers,
processes, and pleadings upon the counsel's former address is
ineffectual. Service is deemed completed only when made at the
updated address.
People's General Insurance DOCTRINE:
Corporation (PGIC) v. Personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons and
Guansing Substituted service is the exception to this general rule. For the
sheriff to avail of substituted service, there must be a detailed
G.R. No. 204759, Date: enumeration of the sheriff's actions showing that a defendant cannot
November 14, 2018 be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. These details are
contained in the sheriff's return and the sheriff's return is entitled to
a presumption of regularity. Courts may allow substituted service
based on what the sheriff's return contains.
Cathay Metal Corporation v. DOCTRINE:
Laguna West Multi-Purpose A Cooperative Code provision requiring cooperatives to have an official
Cooperative Inc. address to which all notices and communications shall be sent cannot
take the place of the rules on summons under the Rules of Court
G.R. No. 172204, Date: July 2, concerning a court proceeding. Notices may be sent to a cooperative's
2014 official address. However, service of notices sent to the official address
in accordance with the Cooperative Code may not be used as a defense
for violations of procedures, especially when such violation affects
another party's rights.
Rule 15 – Motions
In re: Resolution dated DOCTRINE:
August 14, 2013 of the Court A motion prays for a relief other than by a pleading. As the court may
of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. either grant or deny a motion, or otherwise defer action on it until

| 4F – 19’20 | 8
 94656, vs. Atty. Gideon certain conditions are met, lawyers have the obligation to apprise
Mortel themselves of the court’s resolution, and not to simply second-guess
it.
A.C. No. 10117 (Resolution);
July 25, 2016
Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde DOCTRINES:
While the general rule is that a motion that fails to comply with the
G.R. No. 217456 November requirements of Rule 15 is a mere scrap of paper, an exception may
24, 2015 be made and the motion may still be acted upon by the court,
provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor
violate his or her due process rights.v
Valderrama v. People DOCTRINE:
Motion to Reconsider must be filed with the conformity of the public
G.R. No. 220054, March 27, prosecutor. Moreover, the Motion to Reconsider’s Notice of Hearing
2017 must be directed to the adverse party and must inform him or her of
the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply with these
mandates renders the motion fatally defective, equivalent to a
useless scrap of paper.
Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss
Alvarado v. Ayala Land, Inc., DOCTRINE:
et al. Two (2) categories of motions to dismiss may be recognized under
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: first, those that must be filed
G.R. No. 208426, September ahead of an answer, and second, those that may be entertained
20, 2017 even after an answer has been filed. Motions to dismiss under the
first category may plead any of the 10 grounds under Rule 16,
Section 1. Those under the second category may only plead four (4)
of Rule 16, Section 1's 10 grounds: lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. In
addition to these four (4) grounds, motions to dismiss under the
second category may also plead lack of cause of action and other
grounds that may only be made known after the answer was filed.

[Please see discussion of Revised Rules on Civil Procedure in the

Ruling portion, as provisions on Rule 16 are either deleted or
transposed.]
Tuano y Hernandez v. People DOCTRINE:
Although Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court is directly applied
G.R. No. 205871 (Resolution), more often in civil actions for the substitution of the deceased party,
Date: September 28, 2016 the rule that the counsel of the deceased party must inform the court
of the death of his or her client also properly applies in criminal
actions. Regardless of the nature of the action, courts cannot be
expected to assume the death of the party without the counsel's
proper manifestation.
Pilipinas Shell Foundation v. DOCTRINE:
Fredeluces, et. al. When there is more than one suit pending between the same parties for
the same cause of action, litis pendentia exists and a motion to dismiss
G.R. No. 174333, Date: April may be filed on this ground.
20, 2016

| 4F – 19’20 | 9
 In filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged
in the complaint.
Rule 17 – Dismissal of Action
Ching vs. Cheng DOCTRINE:
As a general rule, dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are without
G.R. No. 175507, October 8, prejudice except when it is the second time that the plaintiff caused its
2014 dismissal.

Parties resort to forum shopping when they file several actions of the
same claim in different forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable
result. It is prohibited by the courts as it “trifles with the orderly
administration of justice”.
Rule 18 – Pre - Trial
Commissioner of Internal DOCTRINE:
Revenue v. San Miguel Corp. The allowance of a motion for production of document rests on the
sound discretion of the court where the case is pending, with due
G.R. No.205045 & 205723, regard to the rights of the parties and the demands of equity and
Date: January 25, 2017 justice
Bank of the Philippine DOCTRINE:
Islands v. Spouses Genuino A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC1 does not remove the plaintiff's duty under Rule
18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court to promptly move ex-parte to set his
G.R. No. 208792, July 22, 2015 or her case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed.
While pre-trial promotes efficiency in court proceedings and aids in
decongesting dockets, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC did not give sole burden
on the courts to set cases for pre-trial.

Rule 23 – Depositions Pending Action
Santamaria vs. Clearly
GR No. 197122; June 15 2016
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, providing that "[wjithin five (5) days from date of
filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case
be set for pre-trial conference [and] [i]f the plaintiff fails to file said motion
within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial,"
must be read together with Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court on
dismissals due to plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff should thus sufficiently show
justifiable cause for its failure to set the case for pre-trial; otherwise, the
court can dismiss the complaint outright.
DOCTRINE:
The Section 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court is clear that as
regards the taking of depositions, the testimony of any person may
be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories at the instance of any party. Such provision does not
make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of deposition.
Thus, the Supreme Court found it immaterial that the plaintiff was a
non-resident foreign corporation and that all its witnesses were
Americans residing in the United States.

| 4F – 19’20 | 10
 Rule 27 – Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
Eagleridge Development DOCTRINE:
Corp. vs. Cameron Granville 3 The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of
Asset Management, Inc. discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not
provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of
production or inspection of documents can be utilized.
G.R. No. 204700, Date: What is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is the presentation
November 24, 2014 of oral or extrinsic evidence, not those expressly referred to in the
written agreement.

Rule 32 – Trial by Commissioner

National Power Corporation DOCTRINE:
(NPC) v. Spouses Asoque In case of a taking without the proper expropriation action filed, the
and Trina Asoque property owner may file its own action to question the propriety of the
taking or to compel the payment of just compensation, i.e. inverse
G.R. No. 172507, Date: condemnation. Should the owner file a case for recovery of
September 14, 2016 compensation, Rule 32 would apply and not Rule 67. In this light, the
appointment of the branch clerk of court as the commissioner is
proper since the appointment in this case is dispensable and
discretionary only.
Rule 33 – Demurrer to Evidence
Republic vs. Gimenez DOCTRINE
Sandiganbayan cannot just arbitrarily disregard evidence especially
G.R. No. 174673, Janury 11, when resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of demurrer to
2016 evidence, which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. The
Sandiganbayan should have considered Atienza v. Board of
Medicine, et al. where the Supreme Court held that it is better to
admit and consider evidence for determination of its probative value
than to outright reject it based on very rigid and technical grounds.

A liberal application of the Rules is in line with the state’s policy to

recover ill-gotten wealth.
Rule 35 – Summary Judgments
Olivarez Realty Corp. v. DOCTRINE:
Castillo If the issue of fact requires the presentation of evidence, it is a genuine
issue of fact. However, if the issue could be resolved judiciously by plain
G.R. No. 196251, Date: July 9, resort to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file,
2014 the issue of fact raised is sham, and the trial court may resolve the
action through summary judgment.

Rule 38 – Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings

MADARANG vs SPS. DOCTRINE:
MORALES A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only
under exceptional circumstances. To set aside a judgment through
G.R. No. 199283; June 9, 2014 a petition for relief, parties must file the petition within 60 days from
notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment
or final order was entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed

| 4F – 19’20 | 11
 outright. If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable
negligence of counsel, parties must show that their counsel’s
negligence could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence
and prudence.2 The mere allegation that there is excusable
negligence simply because counsel was 80 years old is a prejudicial
slur to senior citizens. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype of
people in their advanced years. It is as empty as the bigotry that
supports it.

The double period required under Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional

and should be strictly complied with. A petition for relief from
judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright.
This is because a petition for relief from judgment is an exception to
the public policy of immutability of final judgments.A party filing a
petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two (2)
reglementary periods: (a) the petition must be filed within sixty (60)
days from knowledge of the judgment, order or other proceeding to
be set aside; and (b) within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry
of such judgment, order or other proceeding. Strict compliance with
these periods is required because provision for a petition for relief
from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which
remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental
principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must, at some definite
time, attain finality in order at last to put an end to litigation.
City of Dagupan v. Maramba DOCTRINE:
Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of
G.R. No. 174411, Date: July 2, law. A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be
2014 considered a mistake for purposes of granting a petition for relief from
judgment. Mistake as a ground also does not apply and was never
intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have
committed in the trial since such error may be corrected by means of an
appeal. Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice
to one of the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic
fraud.

The 60-day period to file a petition for relief from judgment is reckoned
from actual receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration when
one is filed.
Rule 39 – Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgment
Republic v. Fetalvero DOCTRINE:
Money claims against the government cannot be the subject of writs
G.R. No. 198008, Date: of execution absent any showing that they have been brought before
February 4, 2019 the Commission on Audit, under the Supreme Court (SC)
Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and Commission on Audit
(COA) Circular No. 2001-002

| 4F – 19’20 | 12

Mercury Drug Corporation v
Spouses Huang
G.R. No.197654 Date: August
30, 2017
Land Bank of the Philippines
vs. Manzano
G.R. No. 188243, Date January
24, 2018
Therefore, government funds cannot be seized under writ of
execution or garnishment as Fetalvero dis not go through the
appropriate procedure.
DOCTRINE:
A judgment that lapses into finality becomes immutable and
unalterable. It can neither be modified nor disturbed by courts in any
manner even if the purpose of the modification is to correct perceived
errors of fact or law. Parties cannot circumvent this principle by
assailing the execution of the judgment. What cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly.
DOCTRINE:
Under Rule 39, Section 2(a), a judgment appealed before the Court
of Appeals may still be executed by the RTC, provided there are
good reasons for the judgment's execution. The RTC found that
respondents have been deprived of their land since 1999. They were
dispossessed of the beneficial use, fruits, and income of their
properties, which were taken from them more than 20 years ago
without compensation. Thus, the denial of the execution pending
appeal will infringe on their constitutional right against taking of
private property without compensation. In their motion for execution
pending appeal, respondents indicated their willingness to return any
amount in the event that the just compensation fixed by the RTC is
modified by the Court of Appeals.

Under Rule 67, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may accept
Commissioners' Report, recommit it to the same commissioners for
further report, set it aside and appoint new commissioners, or accept
only a part of it and reject the other parts. In addition, judgment may
be executed pending appeal for good reasons. The delay in payment
likewise requires the imposition of legal interest by way of damages
Hubert Webb vs. NBI Director DOCTRINE:
Magtanggol Gatdula The principle of res judicata, a civil law principle, is not applicable in
criminal cases. This Court has clarified that intent is necessary element
only in criminal contempt cases.
G.R. No. 194469, September 18,
2019
Mabugay-Otamias v. DOCTRINE:
Republic A writ of execution lies against the pension benefits of a retired officer
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which is the subject of a deed
G.R. No.189516, Date: June 8, of assignment drawn by him granting support to his wife and five (5)
2016 children. The benefit of exemption from execution of pension benefits
is a statutory right that may be waived, especially in order to comply
with a husband's duty to provide support under Article XV of the 1987
Constitution and the Family Code.
APPEALS
Rule 40 – Appeal from MTC to RTC
Cruz v. Souses Christensen DOCTRINE:

| 4F – 19’20 | 13
 G.R. No. 205539, October 04, Procedural rules of even the most mandatory character may be
2017 suspended upon a showing of circumstances warranting the exercise of
liberality in its strict application.

The prior service and receipt of a demand letter is unnecessary in a

case for unlawful detainer if the demand to vacate is premised on the
expiration of the lease, not on the non-payment of rentals or non-
compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.

Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of the appeal. Rule 40, Sec.
7 is likewise jurisdictional since the RTC can only resolve errors that are
specifically assigned and properly argued in the memorandum. Thus,
dismissals based on this rule are premised on the non-filing of the
memorandum. A trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over an appeal
where the errors have not been specifically assigned.
Rule 41 – Appeal from RTC
Republic vs. Ortigas & Co., DOCTRINE:
Ltd. Partnership Appeals from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, raising purely
questions of law must, in all cases, be taken to the Supreme Court on a
G.R. No.171496, March 3, 2014 petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. An appeal
by notice of appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals is proper if the
appellant raises questions of fact or both questions of fact and questions
of law.

A motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject

to an appeal, if “it puts an end to a particular matter,” leaving the court
with nothing else to do but to execute the decision.
Spouses Robert Alan and DOCTRINE:
Nancy Lee Limso v. The difference between an interlocutory order and a final order are as
Philippine National Bank follows; the word interlocutory refers to something intervening between
and the Register of Deeds the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point
of Davao City or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy; on the
other hand, a "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a
G.R. No. 158622, 169441, case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect
172958, 173194, 196958, thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the
197120, and 205463, January evidence presented on the trial, declares categorically what the rights
27, 2016 and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance,
of res judicata or prescription.
Rule 43 - Appeals from CTA & Quasi-Judicial Agencies to CA
Cortal v. Inaki A. Larrazabal DOCTRINE:
Enterprises Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully enforced.
Still, their application should not amount to "plac[ing] the

| 4F – 19’20 | 14
 G.R. No. 199107, Date: August administration of justice in a straightjacket." An inordinate fixation on
30, 2017 technicalities cannot defeat the need for a full, just, and equitable
litigation of claims.

Rule 43, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that a
verified petition for review must "be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final
order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies
of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers." Here, petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the
complaint originally filed by Larrazabal Enterprises before the
DARAB should not have been fatal to their Rule 43 petition. Its
inclusion was not absolutely required, as it was certainly not the
award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from. If, in the
Court of Appeals' judgment, it was a material document, the more
prudent course of action would have been to afford petitioners time
to adduce it, not to make a justification out of it for dispossessing
petitioners of relief.

Metropolitan Bank & Trust DOCTRINES:

Co. v. G & P Builders, Inc. The court has laid down the test to determine whether an order is
final or merely interlocutory: "Does it leave something to be done in
G.R. No. 189509 November the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
23, 2015 interlocutory; if it does not, it is final." The remedy against
interlocutory order is petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Metro Bottled Water Corp. v. DOCTRINE:
Andrada Construction & Generally, judicial review of arbitral awards is permitted only on very
Development Corp., Inc. narrow grounds. Republic Act No. 876, or the Arbitration Law, does
not allow an arbitral award to be revisited without a showing of
G.R. No. 202430, Date: March specified conditions, which must be proven affirmatively by the party
6, 2019 seeking its review. The Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution, implementing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004, mandate that arbitral awards will not be vacated "merely on
the ground that the arbitral tribunal committed errors of fact, or of
law, or of fact and law, as the court cannot substitute its judgment for
that of the arbitral tribunal.” Parties are even "precluded from filing
an appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of an
arbitral award.”

The general rule is that appeals of arbitral awards by the

Office of the Ombudsman v.
Delos Reyes, Jr.
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission may only be allowed
on pure questions of law. Even the Construction Industry Arbitration
Law does not provide for any instance when an arbitral award may
be vacated. Exceptions are conduct of the arbitral tribunal and the
qualifications of the arbitrator.
DOCTRINE:
Appeals of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

| 4F – 19’20 | 15
 G.R. No. 208976, Date:
February 22, 2016
Viva Shipping Lines v. Keppel DOCTRINE:
Philippines Rule 43 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure to assail the final
orders and decisions in corporate rehabilitation cases filed under the
G.R. No. 177382, Date: Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. Liberality is an
February 17, 2016 extreme exception, justifiable only when equity exists.
Magat v Tantrade DOCTRINE:
Corporation The grants of both first and second extensions are addressed to the
sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. Mere compliance with the
G.R. No. 205483, August 23, requirements of timely filing a proper motion, tendering payment and
2017 making a deposit, and averring compelling reasons does not
guarantee the Court of Appeals' solicitude. The general rule remains
to be the filing of a verified petition "within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of
petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration." Extensions are
proper only under exceptional circumstances.
CE Construction Corp. v. DOCTRINE:
Araneta Center, Inc. When the arbitral tribunal’s awards become the subject of judicial
review, courts must defer to the factual findings borne by arbitral
G.R. No. 192725 tribunals' technical expertise and irreplaceable experience of
presiding over the arbitral process. Exceptions may be availing but
only in instances when the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself has
been put in jeopardy.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. DOCTRINE:
Delos Reyes Jr. The prevailing view is that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 from
an unfavorable decision or resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 208976, October 13, is available only in the following situations: a) in administrative cases
2014 that have become final and unappealable where respondent is
exonerated or where respondent is convicted and the penalty imposed
is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month,
or a fine equivalent to a one-month salary; and b) in criminal cases
involving the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable
cause during preliminary investigation.
Rule 44 – Ordinary Appealed Cases
Sindophil, Inc. v. Republic of DOCTRINE:
the Philippines Technically, the CA may dismiss an appeal for failure of the appellant
to file the appellants' brief on time. But, the dismissal is directory, not
G.R. No. 204594, Date: mandatory. Hence, the court has discretion to dismiss or not to
October 3, 2018 dismiss the appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty.
The discretion, however, must be a sound one, to be exercised in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the
circumstances obtaining in each case.
Rule 45 – Appeals by Certiorari or Final Orders and Resolutions
Claret School of Quezon City DOCTRINE:
vs. Madelyn Sinday

| 4F – 19’20 | 16
 Judicial review in labor cases may also resolve questions of facts “when
the factual findings and conclusions of the labor tribunals are
G.R. No. 226358, October 9,
contradictory or inconsistent with those of the CA.
2019
Manalo v. Ateneo de Naga DOCTRINES:
University As clarified in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations
Commission, judicial review of decisions of the National Labor
G.R. No. 185058 November Relations Commission is permitted. However, this review is through
09, 2015 a petition for certiorari (i.e., special civil action for certiorari) under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, rather than through an appeal.
Moreover, although this court has concurrent jurisdiction with the
Court of Appeals as regards petitions for certiorari, such petitions are
filed before the Court of Appeals (following, of course, the National
Labor Relations Commission's denial of the appropriate Motion for
Reconsideration), rather than directly before this court. This is
consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. It is only from an
adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals that a party may come to this
court, which shall then be by way of a petition for review on certiorari
(i.e., appeal by certiorari) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Mendoza v. Valte DOCTRINES:
A petition for review filed under Rule 45 may raise only questions of
G.R. No. 172961 September law. The factual findings by the Court of Appeals, when supported
07, 2015 by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding on the
parties and are no longer reviewable unless the case falls under the
recognized exceptions. This court is not a trier of facts and we are
not duty bound to re-examine evidence.
Pascual vs Burgos DOCTRINE:
The Court should not review factual findings of the CA unless the
G.R. No. 171722 January 11, case was one of the 10 recognized exceptions to the general rule
2016 that require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions
filed under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals' reversal or modification of
the factual findings of the trial court does not automatically mean that
it gravely abused its discretion and warrant this Court’s review of the
same.
Villamor Jr. v. Umale DOCTRINES:
Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. There is a question
G.R. No. 172843, Date: of law "when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
September 24, 2014 certain [set] of facts." The test is "whether the appellate court can
determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence."
Esteva vs. Wilhelmsen Smith DOCTRINE:
Bell Manning, Inc. The Court of Appeals can grant a petition for certiorari when it finds that
the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding
G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019 evidence material to the controversy. To make this finding, the Court of
Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own
factual determination.
Toquero vs. Crossworld DOCTRINE:
Marine Services, Inc. Only questions of law should be raised in petitions for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, the

| 4F – 19’20 | 17
 G.R. No. 213482. June 26, 2019 Supreme Court admits of exceptions subject to its sound judicial
discretion. For the Supreme Court to review the facts of the case, these
exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties.
De Lima vs. Gatdula DOCTRINE:
The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the
G.R. No. 204528, Date: actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment
February 19, 2013 of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo.

Lao Jr. v LGU of Cagayan De DOCTRINE:

Oro Section 3 of RA 8975 expressly prohibits the issuance by all courts,
other than this Court, of any temporary restraining orders,
G.R. No. 187869, Date: preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against
September 13, 2017 national government projects. Among the "national government
projects" covered by the prohibition in Section 3 of Republic Act No.
8975 are projects covered by Republic Act No. 6957, as amended,
otherwise known as the Build-Operate-Transfer Law.
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. DOCTRINE:
Paulino Reyes The Rules of Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, both past and
present, provide a mode of appeal from the decisions of the Secretary
to the Office of the President. On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure
G.R. No. 152797, September 18,
of DARAB states that appeals therefrom may be brought before the
2019
Court of Appeals pursuant to the Rules of Court.

The evil sought to be avoided by the rule on forum shopping is the

proliferation of contradictory decisions on the same controversy. This is
the critical factor that courts must consider in determining whether forum
shopping exist.
Cordillera Global Network v. DOCTRINE:
Paje The general rule is that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as
parties to the case. Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all
petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner
G.R. No. 215988, Date: April 10,
in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the
2019
substantial compliance rule.

Constantino v. People DOCTRINE:

Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the reviewing court full
jurisdiction and render it competent to examine the records, revise the
G.R. No. 225696, Date: April 8,
judgment from which an appeal arose, increase the penalty, and cite
2019
the appropriate penal law provision. Thus, in a petition for review on
certiorari, the Court may still review the factual findings of the trial court
"if it is not convinced that [such findings] are conformable to the
evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the
witnesses."
BNL Management Corp. v. Uy DOCTRINE:
The Court in a petition for review on certiorary can no longer review this
finding, being a question of fact. Questions of fact are not reviewable in
G.R. No. 210297, Date: April 3,
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
2019
as they dwell on the truth or falsity of facts.

| 4F – 19’20 | 18
 Terp Construction DOCTRINE:
Corporation vs Banco Filipino The Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court’s factual findings,
Savvings and Mortgage Bank however, is not sufficient reason to warrant this Court’s review.

G.R. No. 221771, September

18,2019
Dee Hwa Liong Foundation DOCTRINE:
Medical Center v AsiaMed Only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review under Rule
Supplies and Equiment 45 of the Rules of Court. It is a general rule that factual findings of
Corporation the Regional Trial Court are conclusive, especially when they have
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the
G.R. No. 205638, August 23, Court of Appeals bind this Court. Although jurisprudence has
2017 provided several exceptions to this rule, exceptions must be alleged,
substantiated, and proved by the parties so this Court may evaluate
and review the facts of the case.
Whessoe, Inc. v. DOCTRINE:
Independent Testing As a general rule, only questions of law can be raised in a petition
Consultants, Inc. et.al. for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
distinction between a question of fact and a question of law is settled.
G.R. No. 199851, Date: There is a question of law if the issue can be determined without
November 7, 2018. reviewing or evaluating the evidence on record. Otherwise, the issue
raised is a question of fact.
Department of Agrarian DOCTRINE:
Reform Multi-Purpose A liberal construction of the rules of procedure, including the period
Cooperative v. Diaz within which a petition for review must be filed, requires justifiable
reasons or at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them.
G.R. No. 206331, June 4, 2018
Failure to file a petition for review on certiorari, or a motion for
extension to file it, within the period prescribed under Rule 45,
Section 2 results in a party's loss of right to appeal. It is settled that
appeal, being a mere statutory right, must be exercised in the
manner and according to procedures laid down by law.
E.I Dupont de Nemours and DOCTRINE:
Co. v. Francisco The test of relevancy of an attachment under Rule 45, Section 4 of
the Rules of Court pertains to whether the document in question will
G.R. No. 174379, Date: August support the material allegations in the petition, whether said
31, 2016 document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of
discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition.
Even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need
not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be
found in another document already attached to the petition.
Padilla v. Malicsi DOCTRINE:
The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be
G.R. No. 201534, Date: raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 since it is not the SC's function
September 21, 2016 to analyze or weigh all over again evidence that has already been
considered in the lower courts. However, these rules admit
exceptions and the presence of these exceptions must be proven by
convincing evidence to warrant a review of facts under a Rule 45
petition.

| 4F – 19’20 | 19
 Heirs of Loyola v. Court of DOCTRINE:
Appeals As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal
may be resolved. The Court of Appeals is allowed to go beyond
G.R. No. 188658, Date:January the assignment by discretion if it “finds that their consideration is
11, 2017 necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the
case.” Ordinarily, this case should have been remanded to the
RTC to make the proper factual determination. However, due to
judicial economy, or “the goal to have cases prosecuted with the
least cost to the parties,” the Court of Appeals correctly reviewed
the case
Sps. Miano v. Meralco DOCTRINE:
The review of appeals filed before the Supreme Court is "not a matter
G.R. No. 205035, Date: of right, but of sound judicial discretion." The Rules of Court requires
November 16, 2016 that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under
Rule 45.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust DOCTRINE:
Co. v. Liberty Corrugated A question of fact requires this court to review the truthfulness or
Boxes Manufacturing Corp. falsity of the allegations of the parties. This review includes
assessment of the “probative value of the evidence presented.”
G.R. No. 184317, There is also a question of fact when the issue presented before this
Date:January 25, 2017 court is the correctness of the lower courts’ appreciation of the
evidence presented by the parties.
Cascayan v. Spouses DOCTRINE:
Gumallaoi The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be
raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. This court is not a trier of facts.
G.R. No. 211947, July 3, 2017 It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the
appellate courts are "final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and
upon this Court" when supported by substantial evidence.
Granada v. People DOCTRINE:
The special civil action of certiorari is not the proper remedy to
G.R. Nos. 184092, 186084, challenge a judgment conviction rendered by the Sandiganbayan.
186272, 186488 & 186570, The proper remedy to take from a judgment of conviction by the
February 22, 2017 Sandiganbayan is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, DOCTRINE:
Inc. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, only questions of law may be raised. Factual findings of the
G.R. No. 222980, March 20, Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if
2017 supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of
Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court when there is
no cogent reason to disturb the same.
Chinatrust Commercial Bank DOCTRINE:
vs Turner Issues that were not alleged or proved before the lower court cannot
be decided for the first time on appeal.
G.R. No. G.R. No. 191458: July
03, 2017
Malabanan v. Malabanan, Jr. DOCTRINE:

| 4F – 19’20 | 20
 G.R. No. 187225, Date: March A question of fact exists when there is doubt on the truth of the
6, 2019 allegations and the issue entails a review of the evidence presented.
Moreover, the findings of the CA are generally binding on this Court.
These rules allow certain exceptions enumerated in Pascual v.
Burgos: (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those
of the trial court.

While the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to

those of the trial court, this alone does not automatically warrant a
review of factual findings by this court. The lower courts'
disagreement as to their factual findings, at most, presents only
prima facie basis for recourse to the SC.
Paringit v. Global Gateway DOCTRINE:
Crewing Services, Inc. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a
Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision
G.R. No. 217123, Date: challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a
February 6, 2019 Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the
question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?
Presidential Commission on DOCTRINE:
Good Government v. Office 1. A court or tribunal is said to have committed grave abuse of
of the Ombudsman discretion if it performs an act in "a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction."
G.R. No. 187794, Date: 2. The Office of the Ombudsman's power to determine probable
November 28, 2018 cause is executive in nature, and with its power to investigate, it is in
a better position than the Supreme Court to assess the evidence on
hand to substantiate its finding of probable cause or lack of it.
Ebuenga v. Southfield DOCTRINE:
Agencies, Inc. This Court is duty-bound to respect the consistent prior findings of
the Labor Arbiter, of the National Labor Relations Commission, and
G.R. No. 208396, March 14, of the Court of Appeals. It must be cautious not to substitute its own
2018 appreciation of the facts to those of the tribunals which have
previously weighed the parties' claims and personally perused the
evidence. It will not discard consistent prior findings and award
disability benefits to a seafarer who fails to adduce even an iota of
evidence, let alone substantial evidence, and fails to draw a causal
connection between his or her alleged ailment and working
conditions.
Visayan Electric Co., Inc. v. DOCTRINE:
Alfeche Ordinarily, it is not for this Court to review factual issues in petitions such
as the present Rule 45 Petition which may only raise questions of law.
G.R. No. 209910, Date This rule, however, admits certain exceptions such as when the factual
November 29, 2017 findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.
ORIENT FREIGHT DOCTRINE:
INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. Failure to implead the lower court as respondent in a petition for
KEIHIN-EVERETT review is a mere formal defect and does not automatically mean the
dismissal of the appeal.

| 4F – 19’20 | 21
 FORWARDING COMPANY,
INC.
G.R. No. 191937, 9 August
2017

CE Luzon Geothermal Power DOCTRINE:

Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of In a Rule 45 Petition, only questions of law may be raised. "This
Internal Revenue Court is not a trier of facts." Unless a case falls under any of the
exceptions, this Court will not undertake a factual review and look
G.R. Nos. 197526 & 199676- into the parties' evidence and weigh them anew.
77, July 26, 2017
Republic v. Moldex Realty DOCTRINE:
A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening
G.R. No. 171041, Date: events, the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases
February 10, 2016 to exist.
Benito v. People DOCTRINE:
A question of fact exists “when the doubt or difference arises as to the
G.R. No. 204644, Date: truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.” On the other hand, a question of
February 11, 2015 law exists “when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts.”
Protective Maximum Security DOCTRINE:
Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes The general rule is that in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, the
Supreme Court (SC) will not review the factual determination of the
G.R. No. 169303, Date: administrative bodies governing labor, as well as the findings of fact by
February 11, 2015 the Court of Appeals (CA).

Republic of the Philippines v. DOCTRINE:

Bayao, et.al. In a petition for certiorari, the failure to file a Motion for
Reconsideration is not fatal if the questions raised in the certiorari
G.R. No. 179492, Date: June proceedings have already been duly raised and passed upon by the
5, 2013 lower court.
Loria vs. Munoz DOCTRINE:
In a Rule 45 petition, the SC does not address questions of fact,
G.R. No. 187240 , October 15, questions which require us to rule on “the truth or falsehood of alleged
2014 facts.” Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the SC only
entertain questions of law — questions as to the applicable law given
a set of facts — in a petition for review on certiorari.
Erwin Libo-ON Dela Cruz v. DOCTRINE:
People It is settled that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of
law are reviewed by this court. The rule that only questions of law may
G.R.No. 209387, January 11, be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 is based on sound and
2016 practical policy considerations stemming from the differing natures of a
question of law and a question of fact.
Bases Conversion DOCTRINE:
Development Authority v. Rule 45 is applicable when the issues raised before this court involved
DMCI Project Developers, purely questions of law. There is a question of law when there is doubt

| 4F – 19’20 | 22
 Inc. or controversy as to what the law is on a certain [set] of facts. The test
is "whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without
G.R. No. 173137 and 173170, reviewing or evaluating the evidence."
January 11, 2016
Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions
Tortal v. Taniguchi DOCTRINE:
Rule 47, Section 3 then provides that an action for annulment of
G.R. No. 212683, Date: judgment, if based on extrinsic fraud, should be filed within four (4)
November 12, 2018 years from discovery of the fraud, or if based on lack of jurisdiction,
then before the action is barred by laches or estoppel.
Castro vs. Gregorio DOCTRINE:
Lack of jurisdiction under Rule 47 means lack of jurisdiction over the
G.R. No. 188801, October 15, nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the
2014 parties. Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is that which prevents a party
from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or that
which operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to
the manner in which it is procured.
Santos vs. Santos DOCTRINE:
Annulment of judgment is the remedy when the Regional Trial Court’s
G.R. No. 187061, October 08, judgment, order, or resolution has become final, and the “remedies of
2014 new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other appropriate remedies) are
no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.” The grounds for
annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Rule 51 – Judgments
Magsaysay Maritime DOCTRINE:
Corporation/Eduardo A conditional settlement of a judgment award may be treated as a
Manese and Princess Cruise compromise agreement and a judgment on the merits of the case if
Lines, LTD v Cynthia De it turns out to be highly prejudicial to one of the parties.
Jesus

G.R. No. 203943, August 30,

2017
Oriental Assurance v Ong DOCTRINE:
This Court recognized the appellate courts' ample authority to
G.R. No. 189524, Date: consider errors that were not assigned. This is in accord with the
October 11, 2017 liberal spirit of the Rules of Court with a view to securing a ''just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition" of every case. In Mendoza v.
Bautista:

[A]n appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review

rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in
these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but
affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not
assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as
errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in

| 4F – 19’20 | 23
 arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case
or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as
errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of
record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the
parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e)
matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related
to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on
appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.
Gadrinab v. Salamanca DOCTRINE:
A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It
G.R. No. 194560, Date: June 11, has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory
2014 unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of
immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that
have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is
to correct errors of fact or law.
PRYCE Corporation v China DOCTRINE:
Banking Corporation [W]ell–settled is the principle that a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and
G.R. No. 172302, Date: may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
February 18, 2004 modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of
fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land.

The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate
sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective
and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment
has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the
fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result and must frown upon
any attempt to prolong the controversies.

The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of

clerical errors, the so–called nunc pro tunc entries which
cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Ong Lay Hin v. Court of DOCTRINE:
Appeals The registry return card is the “official record evidencing service by
mail.” It “carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of
G.R. No. 191972, Date: January official duties that have been regularly performed and, therefore, it is
26, 2015 presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise.”
Piedad v. Bobilles DOCTRINE:
If manifest wrong or injustice would result with the strict adherence
G.R. No. 208614, Date to the statute of limitations or doctrine of laches, it would be better
November 27, 2017 for courts to rule under the principle of equity. This Court, in a long

| 4F – 19’20 | 24
 line of cases, has allowed for the execution of a final and executory
judgment even if prescription has already set in, if the delay was
caused by the judgment obligor for his or her benefit or advantage.
De Ocampo vs Radio DOCTRINE:
Philippines Network Inc. It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or
modified as soon as it becomes final and executory; "[n]othing is
GR No. 192947 ; December 09, more settled in law." Once a case is decided with finality, "the
2015 controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest." Accordingly, a
final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect "even if the
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification
is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest
court of the land." Once a judgment becomes final, the court or
tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues,
as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.
Rule 52 – Motion for Reconsideration
National Power Corporation DOCTRINE:
vs Southern Philippines It is a basic tenet that procedural rules are necessary to facilitate an
Power Corp. orderly and speedy adjudication of disputes. Thus, courts and
litigants alike are enjoined to strictly abide by the rules. Nonetheless,
GR. No. 219627, July 04, 2016 this Court has, in exceptionally meritorious cases, suspended the
technical rules of procedure "in order that litigants may have ample
opportunity to prove their respective claims, and that a possible
denial of substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be
avoided.
Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Bautista DOCTRINE:
For this court to entertain second Motions for Reconsideration, the
G.R. No. 168406, Date: January second Motions must present "extraordinarily persuasive reasons
14, 2015 and only upon express leave first obtained." Once leave to file is
granted, the second Motion for Reconsideration is no longer
prohibited.

Res judicata has two (2) aspects. The first is bar by prior judgment
that precludes the prosecution of a second action upon the same
claim, demand or cause of action. The second aspect is
conclusiveness of judgment, which states that "issues actually and
directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future
case between the same parties involving a different cause of action."

Heirs of Dragon v. The Manila DOCTRINE:

Banking Corp. Payment of correct docket fees cannot be made contingent on the
result of the case. Otherwise, the government and judiciary would
G.R. No. 205068, Date: March sustain tremendous losses, as these fees "take care of court
6, 2019 expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use
of equipmen[t], salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc.,
computed as to man hours used in handling of each case.

| 4F – 19’20 | 25
 However, the rule on after-judgment liens applies to instances of
incorrectly assessed or paid filing fees, or where the court has
discretion to fix the amount to be awarded.
Commissioner of Internal DOCTRINE:
Revenue v. Avon Products The importance of providing the taxpayer with adequate written
Manufacturing, Inc. notice of his or her tax liability is undeniable. Under Section 228, it is
explicitly required that the taxpayer be informed in writing of the law
G.R. No. 201398-99, Date: and of the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the
October 3, 2018 assessment shall be void.
Philippine National Bank v. DOCTRINE:
Heirs of the Late Ireneo and The Constitution requires that a court must state the factual and legal
Caridad Entapa grounds on which its decisions are based. Any decision that fails to
adhere to this mandate is void.
G.R. No. 215072, Date:
September 7, 2016
Saudi Arabian Airlines DOCTRINE:
(Saudia) vs. Rebesencio Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment
of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of
G.R. No. 198587, Date: January jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only “after 'vital
14, 2015 facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances'
require the court's desistance.”
DPWH v DOCTRINE:
CMC/Monark/Pacific/Hi-Tri As the administrative agency tasked with resolving issues pertaining
Joint Venture to the construction industry, the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission enjoys a wide latitude in recognition of its technical
G.R. No. 179732, Date: expertise and experience. Its factual findings are, thus, accorded
September 13, 2017 respect and even finality, particularly when they are affirmed by an
appellate court.

Cotoner- Zacarias vs. DOCTRINE:

Spouses Revilla All complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should
specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of
G.R. No. 193551, November 19, the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
2014 considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case.

Lanuza vs. BF Corporation DOCTRINE:

Consistent with the policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution
G.R. No. 174938, October 1, methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided
2014 such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted
dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of arbitration
Biado v. Brawner-Cualing DOCTRINE:
An issue of jurisdiction is a judicial matter, which can only be decided
A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891, upon through judicial remedies. A party's recourse, if prejudiced by
February 15, 2017 a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing
court and not with the Office of the Court Administrator, through an
administrative complaint. Thus, an administrative complaint is not

| 4F – 19’20 | 26
 the proper remedy for every action of a judge considered "aberrant
or irregular" especially when a judicial remedy exists.
Rule 56 – Original Cases / Appealed Cases
ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon DOCTRINE:
In the executive’s finding of probable cause, a review of the Department
G.R. No. 195956, Date: of Justice Secretary’s decision or resolution will be allowed only when
March 11, 2015 grave abuse of discretion is alleged.
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Rule 58 – Preliminary Injunction
Department of Public Works DOCTRINE:
and Highways v. City For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must
Advertising Ventures Corp. show, by prima facie evidence, an existing right before trial, a
material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of
G.R. No. 182944, preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
December 05, 2016
Philippine Associated DOCTRINE:
Smelting and Refining The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of
Corporation v. Pablito O. the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the
Lim, et. al. right of the plaintiff is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
G.R. No. 172948, damage. The right to inspect corporate books is not subject to an
October 5, 2016 injunctive relief against the stockholders as the proper remedy since
the Corporation Code expressly states that the corporation may only
raise the reasons for denial of the right as a defense in an action filed
by the stockholders before the court and not by raising the reasons
as a ground for an injunctive relief.
Sunrise Garden Corp. v. DOCTRINES:
Court of Appeals Writ of Preliminary Injunction cannot be enforced against a non-party
to the case
G.R. Nos. 158836, 158967,
160726 & 160778 September
20, 2015
PCSO V De Leon DOCTRINE:
In Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. City
G.R. No. 236511, Advertising Ventures Corporation, this Court held that "[f]or a writ of
August 15, 2018 preliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must show, by
prima facie evidence, an existing right before trial, a material and
substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary
injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury."
Evy Construction and DOCTRINE:
Development Corp. v. Valiant In every application for provisional injunctive relief, the applicant
Roll Forming Sales Corp. must establish the actual and existing right sought to be protected.
The applicant must also establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to
G.R. No. 207938, prevent grave and irreparable injury. Failure to do so will warrant the
October 11, 2017 court's denial of the application. Moreover, the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied in the
same summary hearing as the application for the issuance of the

| 4F – 19’20 | 27
 temporary restraining order if the applicant fails to establish
requisites for the entitlement of the writ.
* Bicol Medical Center v. Botor DOCTRINE:
Writs of preliminary injunction are granted only upon prior notice to
G.R. No. 214073. the party sought to be enjoined and upon their due hearing. Rule 58
October 4, 2017 requires a full and comprehensive hearing for the determination of
the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, giving
evidence the applicant an opportunity to prove that great or irreparable injury
will result if no writ is issued and allowing the opposing party to
comment on the application.
Power Generation DOCTRINE:
Employees Association-NPC Provisional reliefs, such as a temporary restraining order or a writ of
v. National Power Corp. preliminary injunction, are ancillary writs issued by the court to
protect the rights of a party during the pendency of the principal
G.R. No. 187420, action.
9 August 2017
Rule 60 – Replevin
Enriquez v The Mercantile DOCTRINE:
Insurance Corporation Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires first, a judgment
on the merits in the defendant's favor, and second, an application by
G.R. No. 210950, the defendant for damages.
August 15, 2018
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
Rule 62 - Interpleader
Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig DOCTRINE:
Pharma Corp. An adverse claimant in an interpleader case may be declared in default.
Under Rule 62, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a
G.R. No. 193494, claimant who fails to answer within the required period may, on motion,
March 12, 2014 be declared in default. The consequence of the default is that the court
may render judgment barring [the defaulted claimant] from any claim in
respect to the subject matter.
Rule 63 – Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
City of Lapu-Lapu vs. DOCTRINE:
Philippine Economic Zone Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the
Authority filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer
assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no
G.R. No. 184203 & 187583, more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has
November 26, 2014 already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the
action.

Considering that "the nature of an action is determined by the

allegations of the complaint or the petition and the character of the
relief sought," a petition which "actually avers errors of judgment
rather than errors than that of jurisdiction" may be considered a
petition for review.

Rule 64 – Review on Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC & COA

| 4F – 19’20 | 28
 The Diocese of Bacolod v. DOCTRINE:
Commission on Elections Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the COMELEC. Rule
65 is applicable especially to raise objections relating to a grave abuse
G.R. No. 205728, of discretion resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction. As a special civil
January 21, 2015 action, there must also be a showing that there be no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
Rule 65 – Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Degamo v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court cannot correct errors
of fact or law not amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The Court
G.R. No. 212416, may review public respondent's exercise of its investigative and
December 5, 2018 prosecutorial powers, but only upon a clear showing that it abused
its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic
manner.

SC has adopted a policy of non-interference with the Office of the

Ombudsman's determination of probable cause. The rule on non-
interference is based on the respect for the investigatory and
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power
to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the
strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make
a finding of probable cause.
Lihaylihay v Tan DOCTRINE:
The grant of an informer's reward for the discovery, conviction, and
G.R. No. 192223, punishment of tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-judicial matter
July 23, 2018 that cannot be the subject of a writ of mandamus. It is not a legally
mandated ministerial duty. This reward cannot be given to a person
who only makes sweeping averments about undisclosed wealth,
rather than specific tax offenses, and who fails to show that the
information which he or she supplied was the undiscovered pivotal
cause for the revelation of a tax offense, the conviction and/or
punishment of the persons liable, and an actual recovery made by
the State. Indiscriminate, expendable information negates a clear
legal right and further impugns the propriety of issuing a writ of
mandamus.
Nonay v. Bahia Shipping DOCTRINE:
Services A petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is allowed even after the National Labor
G.R. No. 206758, Relations Commission's Decision has become final and executory,
Februrary 17, 2016 provided that the petition is filed before the expiration of the 60-day
reglementary period under Rule 65.
In Re Supreme Court Judicial DOCTRINE:
Independence v. Judiciary The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be performed
Development Fund is ministerial. An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise
of judgment and the act is performed in compliance with a legal
UDK-15143 (Resolution), mandate.

| 4F – 19’20 | 29
 January 21, 2015
Lim vs. Lim DOCTRINE:
The trial court's noncompliance with procedural rules constitutes grave
G.R. No. 214163, abuse of discretion, which may be remedied by a petition for certiorari
July 1, 2019 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Elenita S. Binay v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan, SCA: Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the “capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer
G.R. No. 213957-58, concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The
August 7, 2019 abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a 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
hostility."

CRIMPRO: Rule 112; Preliminary investigation is not part of trial and is

conducted only to establish whether probable cause exists.
Consequently, it is not subject to the same due process requirements
that must be present during trial.
Dynamic Builders & DOCTRINE:
Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Rule 65 requires that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, or
Presbitero, Jr. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. When the matter is of
extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, even Regional Trial
G.R. No. 174202 Courts may grant injunctive reliefs. Considering that petitioner alleges
April 7, 2015 that this matter is "of extreme urgency, involving as it does the
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law," it
should have prayed for injunctive relief before the trial court where its
Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 was pending, together with a bond
fixed by the court.
Joson v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman JOSON V. Although a motion for reconsideration is required before this Court
OMBUDSMAN can entertain a petition for certiorari this may be relaxed to ensure
the realization of substantial justice. Furthermore, appeals from
G.R. Nos. 197433 and 197435, decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
9 August 2017 disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the
provisions of Rule 43 and not under Rule 65.

De Lima, et al v. Reyes DOCTRINE:

Any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave
G.R. No. 209330, abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
January 11, 2016 affirming, reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be
the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Also, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the regularity of
preliminary investigation becomes moot after the trial court completes
its determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of arrest.
Tankeh v. Development DOCTRINE:
Bank of the Phils. In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of
certiorari, this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 Petition for

| 4F – 19’20 | 30
 G.R. No. 171428,
November 11, 2013
Buena vs. Benito
G.R. No. 181760,
October 14, 2014
Cruz v. People
G.R. No. 224974,
July 3, 2017
Taar v. Lawan
G.R. No. 190922,
February 26, 2018
Heirs of Zoleta v. Land Bank
of the Philippines
G.R. No. 205128,
9 August 2017
Canlas v. Bongolan
G.R. NO. 199625,
June 6, 2018
Crispino v. Tansay
G.R. No. 184466,
December 05, 2016
| 4F – 19’20 |
Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. This is
allowed if (1) the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for
filing a Petition for review; (2) when errors of judgment are averred;
and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the
rules. When this Court exercises this discretion, there is no need to
comply with the requirements provided for in Rule 65.
DOCTRINE:
Failure to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court is a
ground to dismiss the action.
For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a ministerial
act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act should be performed under a
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of the
tribunal or corporation’s own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done.
DOCTRINE:
The trial court's failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes
grave abuse of discretion and may be the subject of a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
DOCTRINE:
As a rule, a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65, Section 1 of
the Rules of Court is specifically required to have "no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
Ordinarily, if an appeal can be taken from a judgment or order, then
the remedy of certiorari will not lie. The mere possibility of delay
arising from an appeal does not warrant direct recourse to a petition
for certiorari. However, as an exception, the availability of an appeal
does not necessarily proscribe the institution of a petition for
certiorari if it is shown that an appeal is inadequate, slow, insufficient
and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the
order complained of.
DOCTRINE:
The power to issue writs of certiorari is an incident of judicial
review. Thus, administrative agencies may not issue writs of
certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they
exercise supervisory authority over these officers or organs.
DOCTRINE:
The decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or
reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint,
or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE:
The CA’s power to receive evidence to resolve factual issues in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction is qualified
by its internal rules. In an ordinary appeal, the Court of Appeals may
31
 receive evidence when a motion for new trial is granted based on
newly discovered evidence.

A special civil action for certiorari is not the only remedy that
aggrieved parties may take against an interlocutory order, since an
interlocutory order may be appealed in an appeal of the judgment
itself.
David v. Senate Electoral DOCTRINE:
Tribunal and Mary Grace The judgments of the SET are not beyond the scope of any review.
Poe-Llamanzares Article VI, Section 17's stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the
"sole" judge must be read in harmony with Article VIII, Section 1's
G.R. No. 221538 express statement that "judicial power includes the duty of the courts
September 20, 2016 of justice . . . to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Bagumbayan-VNP DOCTRINE:
Movement v. Commission on A petition for mandamus may be granted and a writ issued when an
Elections agency "unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office."
G.R. No. 222731,
March 8, 2016
MONICO A. ABOGADO DOCTRINE:
ET.AL. V. DENR, DA, BFAR The Writ of Kalikasan is categorized as a special civil action and
was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, which
G.R. No. 246209, Date: aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s
September 3, 2019 of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a
magnitude or degree of damage that transcends political and
territorial boundaries.

On the other hand, a Writ of Continuing Mandamus is a special

civil action that may be availed of 'to compel the performance of
an act specifically enjoined by law. This writ is essentially a
continuing order of the court, as it: . . . "permits the court to retain
jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful
implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court's decision"
and, in order to do this, "the court may compel the submission of
compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as
well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its
decision."
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino DOCTRINE:
III Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court provides remedies to
address grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or
G.R. No. 210500, instrumentality, particularly through petitions for certiorari and
April 2, 2019 prohibition. While these provisions pertain to a tribunal's, board's, or an
officer's exercise of discretion in judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions, Rule 65 still applies to invoke the expanded scope of judicial
power.

| 4F – 19’20 | 32
 Office of the Ombudsman vs. DOCTRINE:
Delos Reyes Jr. The prevailing view is that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 from
an unfavorable decision or resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 208976, October 13, is available only in the following situations: a) in administrative cases
2014 that have become final and unappealable where respondent is
exonerated or where respondent is convicted and the penalty imposed
is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month,
or a fine equivalent to a one-month salary; and b) in criminal cases
involving the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable
cause during preliminary investigation.
Ornales v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Deputy Ombudsman Orders and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal
cases may be elevated to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition,
G.R. No. 214312, Date: while its orders and decisions in administrative disciplinary cases
September 5, 2018 may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 43 petition.
Rule 67 – Expropriation
National Power Corp. v. DOCTRINE:
Posada I. When the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose,
the expropriation complaint should be dismissed by the trial court. The
G.R. No. 191945, case will proceed only if the trial court's order of expropriation became
March 11, 2015 final and executory and the expropriation causes prejudice to the
property owner.
II. Expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects are
governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. 8974.
Rule 68 – Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. DOCTRINE:
Solidbank Corp. The requirement for publication of a Notice of Sale in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is complied with when the publication is circulated at least
G.R. No. 209452, in the city where the property is located.
July 26, 2017
MAHINAY v. DURA TIRE & DOCTRINE:
RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INC. The period to redeem a property sold in an extrajudicial foreclosure
sale is not extendible. A pending action to annul the foreclosure sale
G.R. No. 194152, June 05, does not toll the running of the one (1)-year period of redemption
2017 under Act No. 3135.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust DOCTRINE:
Company v. S.F. Naguiat Act No. 1956 impliedly requires a secured creditor to ask the permission
Enterprises, Inc. of the insolvent court before said creditor can foreclose the mortgaged
property.
G.R. No. 178407,
March 18, 2015
Rule 70 – Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Eversley Childs Sanitarium DOCTRINE:
v. Spouses Barbarona A case for unlawful detainer must state the period from when the
occupation by tolerance started and the acts of tolerance
G.R. No. 195814, exercised by the party with the right of possession. If the

| 4F – 19’20 | 33
 April 4, 2018 possession was illegal from the start, the proper remedy is to file
an accion publiciana, or a plenary action to recover the right of
possession.

While an ejectment case merely settles the issue of the right of

actual possession, the issue of ownership may be provisionally
passed upon if the issue of possession cannot be resolved without
it . Any final disposition on the issue of ownership must be
resolved in the proper forum.
Philippine Long Distance DOCTRINE:
Telephone Company vs. Citi The precedent set in Tijam is based on the doctrine of equity, which
Appliance M.C. Corporation applies only in cases “where jurisdiction was raised at the very last
minute when the parties have already gone through long years of
G.R. No. 214546, litigation.”
October 9, 2019
If forcible entry is done through stealth, the period is counted from the
time the plaintiff discovered the entry.It merely submitted proof of
ownership over the property, which is not sufficient to prove prior
physical possession.
Rule 71 - Contempt
Polo Plantation Agrarian DOCTRINE:
Reform Multipurpose In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus,
Cooperative (POPARMUCO) the good faith or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is considered.
v. Inson Where the act complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly show
on its face that it is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting
G.R. No. 189162, Date: in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or absence of a
January 30, 2019 contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative
of its character. To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully
and for an illegitimate or improper purpose.
Steamship Mutual DOCTRINE:
Underwriting Association An insured member may be compelled to arbitration pursuant to the
(Bermuda) Limited v. Rules of the Protection and Indemnity Club, which were incorporated
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. in the insurance policy by reference. Where there are multiple
parties, the court must refer to arbitration the parties covered by the
G.R. No.196071, agreement while proceeding with the civil action against those who
September 20, 2017 were not bound by the arbitration agreement.
Hubert Webb vs. NBI Director DOCTRINE:
Magtanggol Gatdula The principle of res judicata, a civil law principle, is not applicable in
criminal cases. This Court has clarified that intent is necessary element
G.R. No. 194469, only in criminal contempt cases.
September 18, 2019
Oca v. Custodio DOCTRINE:
1. Contempt of court is willful disobedience to the court and
G.R. No. 199825, disregard or defiance of its authority, justice, and dignity. It
July 26, 2017 constitutes conduct which "tends to bring the authority of the court
and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to
impede the due administration of justice" or "interfere with or
prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation."

| 4F – 19’20 | 34
 2. The punishment for contempt is classified into two (2): civil
contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is committed when
a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge "for the benefit
of the other party." A criminal contempt is committed when a party
acts against the court's authority and dignity or commits a forbidden
act tending to disrespect the court or judge.
3. A non-litigant may be cited in contempt if he or she acted in
conspiracy with the parties in violating the court order
Yu Kimteng v. Young DOCTRINE:
A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer
G.R. No. 210554, who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name
August 5, 2015 commits indirect contempt of court.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Settlement of Estate of Deceased
Capablanca vs Heirs of Bas DOCTRINE:
The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not
G.R. No. 224144; been judicially declared to be so, if duly proven, is well settled in this
June 28, 2017 jurisdiction. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased
person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by
the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest, and as such he
can deal with it in precisely the same way in which the deceased
could have dealt, subject only to the limitations which by law or by
contract may be imposed upon the deceased himself. Thus, it has
been held that there is no legal precept or established rule which
imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding their
status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with
legal capacity, consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in
order that they may maintain an action arising out of a right which
belonged to their ancestor.
General Guardians and Guardianship
Rule 102 – Habeas Corpus
In re Salibo v. Warden DOCTRINE:
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due
G.R. No. 197597, to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful
April 8, 2015 process and is continuously being illegally detained.
Osorio v. Navera DOCTRINE:
Kidnapping should never be part of the functions of a soldier. It
G.R. No. 223272, cannot be done in a soldier's official capacity. If a soldier nonetheless
February 26, 2018 proceeds allegedly on the orders of a superior officer, the soldier
shall be tried before the civil courts. The remedy of habeas corpus,
on the argument that only courts-martial have jurisdiction over
members of the Armed Forces, will not lie.
Rule 108 – Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry
Glenn M. Miller v. Joan E. DOCTRINE:
Miller and the Local Civil The summary procedure for correction of entries in the civil
registry under article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the

| 4F – 19’20 | 35
 Registrar of
Gubat, Rules of Court is confined to "innocuous or clerical errors, such
Sorsogon as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding" or corrections that are not
G.R. No. 200344, Date: controversial and are supported by indubitable evidence.”
August 28, 2019
R.A. NO. 9048
Republic vs. Gallo DOCTRINE:
Republic Act No. 9048 defines a clerical or typographical error as a
G.R. No. 207074, recorded mistake, "which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
January 17, 2018 understanding. By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical
error as a mistake "visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding," the law recognizes that there is a factual
determination made after reference to and evaluation of existing
documents presented. Thus, corrections may be made even though
the error is not typographical if it is "obvious to the understanding,"
even if there is no proof that the name or circumstance in the birth
certificate was ever used.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses
Aquino v. People DOCTRINE:
Criminal acts are regarded to have been committed within the
G.R. No. 217349, province or city where the appellant was found and arrested.
November 7, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE:
Danilo Feliciano, Jr. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial,
will not be appreciated as such.
G.R. No. 196735, In criminal cases, the exception to the rule that the Court is not a trier of
May 5, 2014 fact gains even more importance since the presumption is always in
favor of innocence.
When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the
victim who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end
at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that
an attack occurred.
Valderrama v. People DOCTRINE:
Motion to Reconsider must be filed with the conformity of the public
G.R. No. 220054, March 27, prosecutor. Moreover, the Motion to Reconsider’s Notice of Hearing
2017 must be directed to the adverse party and must inform him or her of
the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply with these
mandates renders the motion fatally defective, equivalent to a
useless scrap of paper.
People vs Feliciano DOCTRINE:
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being
GR No.196735; alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an
August 3, 2016 aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be
appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution
to state the aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or
other forms of disguise” in the information in order for all the
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.

| 4F – 19’20 | 36
 Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action
Jadewell Parking Systems DOCTRINE:
Corporation vs. Lidua Sr. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is
G.R. No. 169588, October 7, involved in an ordinance.
2013
Rule 112 – Preliminary Investigation
Maza v. Turla DOCTRINE:
Trial court judges cannot remand the case for another conduct of
G.R. No. 187094, preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary
February 15, 2017 investigation was improperly conducted. Moreover, the issue of
admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is properly addressed
during the trial on the merits of the case and not during the early
stage of preliminary investigation.
MENDOZA V. PEOPLE DOCTRINE:
Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally
G.R. No. 197293, evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
21 April 2014 evidence" to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination of probable
cause exists
Napoles vs De Lima DOCTRINE:
It is not required that the complete or entire records of the case
GR. No. 213529; during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined
July 13, 2016 by the judge. We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by
obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the
time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused.
What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient
supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-
affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of
stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent
judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the
prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
Tupaz v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Deputy Ombudsman for the The determination of probable cause is an executive, not a judicial,
Visayas function. It is generally not for a court to disturb the conclusion made
by a public prosecutor. This is grounded on the basic principle of
G.R. No. 212491-92, separation of powers. However, "grave abuse of discretion taints a
March 6, 2019 public prosecutor's resolution if he [or she] arbitrarily disregards the
jurisprudential parameters of probable cause." In such cases,
consistent with the principle of checks and balances among the three
(3) branches of government, a writ of certiorari may be issued to
undo the prosecutor's iniquitous determination.

Public prosecutors are not bound to adhere to a party's apparent

determination of the specific crime for which a person shall stand
trial. Their discretion "include[s] the right to determine which laws
prosecution will be pursued.

| 4F – 19’20 | 37

REYES VS OMBUDSMAN
G.R. 208243;
June 5, 2017
Dichaves v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman Only when a person stands trial (not when still under preliminary
G.R. No. 206310-11,
December 7, 2016
Pemberton v. De Lima
G.R. No. 217508,
April 18, 2016
Cagang v Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 206438,
July 31, 2018
Determining probable cause must be made in reference to the
elements of the crime charged. "This is based on the principle that
every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should
be, at the most, no criminal offense."
DOCTRINE:
The court consistently held that the essence of due process is simply
an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or
an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. For as long as the parties are given the opportunity
to present their cause of defense, their interest in due course as in
this case, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.
investigation) may he or she demand the right to confront and cross-
examine his accusers. Also, the executive finding of probable cause
requires only substantial evidence, not absolute certainty of guilt.
DOCTRINE:
The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely
necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an
exception to the policy.
DOCTRINE:
The period for the determination of whether inordinate delay was
committed shall commence from the filing of a formal complaint and
the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The periods for the
resolution of the preliminary investigation shall be that provided in
the Rules of Court, Supreme Court Circulars, and the periods to be
established by the Office of the Ombudsman. Failure of the
defendant to file the appropriate motion after the lapse of the
statutory or procedural periods shall be considered a waiver of his or
her right to speedy disposition of cases.

The ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division that factfinding

investigations are included in the period for determination of
inordinate delay is ABANDONED.
Reynes v. Office of the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman (Visayas) Determining probable cause for the filing of a criminal information is
an executive function. Resolutions made by public prosecutors in
G.R. No. 223405, exercise of this function shall generally not be disturbed by courts.
February 20, 2019 disregard the jurisprudential parameters for determining probable
cause are tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Such iniquitous
determinations are correctible by certiorari.
Securities and Exchange DOCTRINE:
Commission v. Price 1. The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing an
Richardson Corp. information is lodged with the public prosecutor. It is not reviewable
by courts unless it is attended by grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 197032, 2. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has
July 26, 2017 been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-

| 4F – 19’20 | 38
 founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private
respondent is probably guilty thereof.
Personal Collection Direct DOCTRINE:
Selling, Inc. v. Carandang In granting or denying a motion to withdraw an Information, the court
must conduct a cautious and independent evaluation of the evidence
G.R. No. 206958, of the prosecution and must be convinced that the merits of the case
November 8, 2017 warrant either the dismissal or continuation of the action. If the case
is dismissed or if there is an acquittal, the appeal of the criminal
aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on
behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to
question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect
of the case.
Pavlow vs Mendenilla DOCTRINE:
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their
G.R. No. 181489, April 19, children is expressly given personality by Section 9(b) of Republic
2017 Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-VAWC Law), to file a civil
action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child.
In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from
the criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere filing
of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an
information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata
that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection
order.

Jurisprudence has long settled that preliminary investigation does

not form part of trial. Investigation for the purpose of determining
whether an actual charge shall subsequently be filed against the
person subject of the investigation is a purely administrative, rather
than a judicial or quasi-judicial, function. It is not an exercise in
adjudication: no ruling is made on the rights and obligations of the
parties, but merely evidentiary appraisal to determine if it is worth
going into actual adjudication. The dismissal of a complaint on
preliminary investigation by a prosecutor "cannot be considered a
valid and final judgment." As there is no former final judgment or
order on the merits rendered by the court having jurisdiction over
both the subject matter and the parties, there could not have been
res judicata — actual or looming as to bar one (1) of several
proceedings on account of litis pendentia — as to bar Mendenilla's
petition for being an act of forum shopping.
Rule 113 - Arrest
Joseph Villasana y Cabahug DOCTRINE:
vs People of the Philippines It is settled that “reliable information” provided by police assets alone is
not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
G.R. No. 209078,
September 4, 2019
People v. Cogaed DOCTRINE:
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an
G.R. No. G.R. No. 200334, opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable cause. The

| 4F – 19’20 | 39
 July 30, 2014 court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause.
Nevertheless, mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed about him.
Manibog v. People DOCTRINE:
To sustain the validity of a stop and frisk search, the arresting officer
G.R. No. 211214, should have personally observed two (2) or more suspicious
March 20, 2019 circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable
inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting officer to investigate
further.
Veridiano vs People DOCTRINE:
Failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude
G.R. No. 200370; an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.
June 7, 2017 The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused
fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a
timely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the
constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually
exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.

For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two

elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute
an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."
Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante
delicto arrest constitutionally infirm.
Lapi y Mahipus v. People DOCTRINE:
The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the
G.R. No.210731, accused, assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before
February 13, 2019 arraignment.
Aparente y Vocalan v. People DOCTRINE:
As a rule, the arrest must precede the search and that the process
G.R. No. 205695. cannot be reversed. However, a search substantially
March 7, 2018 contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police
have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.

The Court stresses that where miniscule amounts of drugs are

involved, trial courts require more exacting compliance with the
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Consequently, the
failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs
immediately after seizure and confiscation casts a shadow of doubt
on the integrity of the operation.
People v. Leonardo Yanson, DOCTRINE:
Jaime Sison and Rosalie A search of a moving vehicle is one of the few permissible exceptions
Bautista where warrantless searches can be made. However, there must be
probable cause. Probable cause does not demand moral certainty, or
G.R. No. 238453, evidence sufficient to justify conviction, it requires the existence of "a
July 31, 2019 reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently

| 4F – 19’20 | 40

Mario Reyes vs. People of the DOCTRINE:
Philippines
G.R. No. 237172,
September 18, 2019
Tejano v. Marigomen
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2492,
September 26, 2017
People vs. Escobar
G.R. No. 214300,
July 26, 2017
Kim Liong v. People
G.R. No. 200630 ,
June 4,2018
People vs. Palema
G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019
Corpus, Jr. v. Hon. Pamular
G.R. No. 186403,
September 5, 2018
| 4F – 19’20 |
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged."
Therefore, law enforcers "must not rely on a single suspicious
circumstance." Lack of probable cause constitutes an illegal search
which would result in the inadmissibility in evidence of whatever items
were seized.
As a rule, the effects of an appeal can only bind the accused who
appealed his or her conviction. However, when an appellate court
renders a favorable judgment, the effects of such favorable judgment
extends even to those who did not appeal, to the extent that such effects
apply to their specific contexts.
Rule 114 - Bail
The presence of even one of the enumerated circumstances in Rule
114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court is sufficient cause to deny or cancel
bail.
DOCTRINE:
Without a standing warrant of arrest, a judge not assigned to the
province, city, or municipality where the case is pending has no
authority to grant bail. To do so would be gross ignorance of the law.
DOCTRINE:
Res judicata applies only in a final judgment in a civil case, not in an
interlocutory order in a criminal case. An order disposing a petition
for bail is interlocutory. This order does not attain finality when a new
matter warrants a second look on the application for bail.
Rule 115 – Rights of Accused
DOCTRINE:
The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort, is not a trier of facts,
and rightfully so. As a rule therefore, petitions for review on certiorari
may only raise questions of law.
Rule 115 Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court provides for the rights of
an accused to cross-examine wherein the denial of such right will
render the testimony of the witness incomplete and inadmissible in
evidence. However, the right to cross-examine may be waived.
When an accused is given the opportunity to cross-examine a
witness but fails to avail of it, the accused shall be deemed to have
waived this right.
Rule 116 – Arraignment & Plea
DOCTRINE:
The absence of arraignment renders the proceedings against the
accused void.
DOCTRINE:
An allegation of conspiracy to add a new accused without changing
the prosecution's theory that the accused willfully shot the victim is
merely a formal amendment. However, the rule provides that only
formal amendments not prejudicial to the rights of the accused are
41
 allowed after plea. The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by
an amendment is to determine whether a defense under the original
information will still be available even after the amendment is made
and if any evidence that an accused might have would remain
applicable even in the amended information.
Rule 117 – Motion to Quash
Escobar v. People DOCTRINE:
Except with respect to civil cases impliedly instituted, the rule of
G.R. No. 205576, conclusiveness of judgment has no application in criminal law
November 20, 2017 proceedings. For criminal procedure, it is not res judicata under Rule
39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, but res judicata in prison grey
as double jeopardy, under Rule 117, Section 7.
Dio v People DOCTRINE;
When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and
GR. No. 208146, sufficiency of an Information, and the defect may be cured by
June 08, 2016 amendment, courts must deny the motion to quash and order the
prosecution to file an amended Information. Generally, a defect
pertaining to the failure of an Information to charge facts constituting
an offense is one that may be corrected by an amendment. In such
instances, courts are mandated not to automatically quash the
Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution the opportunity to
cure the defect through an amendment.
Rule 119 - Trial
BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa DOCTRINE:
When a demurrer is granted in a criminal case, the private complainant
G.R. No. 237553, can file a Rule 65 petition on the civil aspect of the case, as long as he
July 10, 2019 or she can show that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
in granting the demurrer.
CRUZ VS PEOPLE DOCTRINE:
1.The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered
G.R. No. 210266, access device fraud and is punishable by law. To successfully
June 07, 2017 sustain a conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit access
device, the prosecution must present not only the access device but
also any evidence that proves that the access device is counterfeit.
2.While the rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it
was not identified and pre-marked during trial. This provision,
however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for good
cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may
constitute "good cause," though this Court has previously defined it
as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse."
Rule 120 – Judgment
Osorio v. People DOCTRINE:
There is a question of law when “doubt or difference arises as to
G.R. No. 207711, what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances.” On the
July 02, 2018 other hand, there is a question of fact when “the issue raised on
appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.” This
includes an assessment of the probative value of evidence
presented during trial. If the principal issue may be resolved without

| 4F – 19’20 | 42
 reviewing the evidence, then the question before the appellate court
is one of law.

Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company

but divert the same to another without the investor's consent may be
held criminally liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the RPC.
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in scope intended to
cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and
317 of the RPC.

As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which

Rule 121 – New Trial or Reconsideration
Abubakar v People
G.R. No. 202408,
June 27, 2018
he or she is charged. This rule proceeds from the Constitutional
guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him or her. An exception to this
is the rule on variance under Rule 120, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure simply means that if there is a variance between
the offense charged and the offense proved, an accused may be
convicted of the offense proved if it is included in the offense
charged. An accused may also be convicted of the offense charged
if it is necessarily included in the offense proved.
DOCTRINE:
In criminal as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that
the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the
conduct of the proceedings in the trial court, as a result of the
ignorance, inexperience, or incompetence of counsel, does not
furnish a ground for a new trial.

Given that a person's liberty is at stake in a criminal case, Umali

concedes that the strict application of the general rule may lead to a
manifest miscarriage of justice.96 Thus, appropriate relief may be
accorded to a defendant who has shown a meritorious defense and
who has satisfied the court that acquittal would follow after the
introduction of omitted evidence
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Rule 128 – General Provisions
People v. Alan Banding DOCTRINE:
Section 21 remains couched in a specific, mandatory language that
G.R. No. 233470, commands strict compliance. The accuracy it requires goes into the
August 14, 2019 covertness of buy-bust operations and the very nature of narcotic
substances.
People v. Jomar Castillo DOCTRINE:
"The requirement of conducting inventory and taking of photographs
G.R. No. 38339, immediately after seizure and confiscation necessarily means that the
August 7, 2019 required witnesses must also be present during the seizure and
confiscation." The presence of third-party witnesses is not an empty
formality in the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is not a mere
rubberstamp to validate the actions taken and self-serving assurances

| 4F – 19’20 | 43
 proffered by law enforcement officers. The attendance of third-party
witnesses ensures the identity, origin, and integrity of the items seized.

Noncompliance with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act is not, in all cases, fatal to the prosecution. Conviction can
ensue as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated items are properly preserved.

People v. Jayson Merando DOCTRINE:

Unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure will
G.R. No. 232620, shroud in doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug allegedly
August 5, 2019 seized. When there is reasonable doubt, an accused's acquittal must
ensue.
People v. Larry Sultan DOCTRINE:
The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that
G.R. No. 225210, unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
August 7, 2019 removed." Noncompliance with Section 21 engenders doubt on the
integrity of the corpus delicti. When the corpus delicti is cast in doubt,
an accused's guilt is also cast in doubt- warranting acquittal.
People v. Isidro B. Ramos DOCTRINE:
Indeed, strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21
G.R. No. 225325, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may not always be
August 28, 2019 possible under varied field conditions. Section 21 (1) of the law's
Implementing Rules and Regulations states that "non-compliance
of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.]" For this clause to apply, the prosecution must
satisfactorily prove that: (1) there is justifiable ground for
noncompliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.
Rule 129 – What Need Not Be Proved
Ligtas v. People DOCTRINE:
Findings of fact of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-
G.R. No. 200751, judicial powers are entitled to respect if supported by substantial
August 17, 2015 evidence. Judicial determinations of quasi-judicial bodies have the
same binding effect as judgments and orders of a regular judicial body.
Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
People v. Magallano, Jr. y DOCTRINE:
Flores There is no standard form of human behavioral response when
confronted with a frightful experience. Not every witness to a crime
G.R. No. 220721, can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the
December 10, 2018 expectations of mankind, because witnessing a crime is an unusual
experience that elicit[s] different reactions from witnesses, and for
which no clear-cut, standard form of behavior can be drawn.

| 4F – 19’20 | 44
 Spouses Paras v. Kimwa DOCTRINE:
Construction and Two things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted: first,
Development Corp. that the existence of any of the four exceptions has been put in issue in
a party’s pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and
G.R. No. 171601, second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form
April 8, 2015 the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party.
People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE:
Shirley A. Casio Under the “subjective” test, the focus of the inquiry is on the accused's
predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and
G.R. No. 211465, inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant
December 3, 2014 facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past
offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his
reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the
crime.

Under the “objective” test, the inquiry is focused on the inducements

used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and
his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to
deter unlawful police conduct.
Onofre Andres vs. PNB DOCTRINE:
A petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. The
G.R. No. 173548, Supreme Court is not a trier of facts that routinely reexamines evidence
October 15, 2014 presented.

A person presenting an altered document must account for the

alteration; otherwise, this affects its admissibility.
People v. Dimapilit
y DOCTRINE:
Abellado A witness' inconsistency on minor details does not affect his or her
credibility as long as there are no material contradictions in his or her
G.R. No. 210802, absolute and clear narration on the central incident and positive
August 9, 2017 identification of the accused as one (1) of the main assailants. Any
inconsistency, which is not relevant to the elements of the crime, "is
not a ground to reverse a conviction."
Lopez vs People DOCTRINE:
A "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person
GR. No. 212186, identified as a suspect is akin to an "invitation." Thus, the suspect is
June 29, 2016 covered by the rights of an accused while under custodial
investigation. Any admission obtained from the "request for
appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in
evidence.
Rodriguez v Your Own Home DOCTRINE:
Development Corporation To contradict statements in a notarial document, there must be clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence against it.
G.R. No. 199451, A subsequent notarial document retracting the previous statement is
August 15, 2018 not even sufficient

| 4F – 19’20 | 45

People v. Opiniano y Verano
G.R. No. 181474,
July 26, 2017
The general rule is that courts look with disfavor upon retractions of
testimonies previously given in court. . . . The reason is because
affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant
witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that they will
later be repudiated and there would never be an end to criminal
litigation.
DOCTRINE:
Dela Cruz's extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police
station without a valid waiver of the right to counsel - that is, in writing
and in the presence of counsel - is inadmissible in evidence.

An accused is always a competent witness for or against his co-

accused, and the fact that he had been discharged from the
information does not affect the quality of his testimony, for the
admissibility, the relevancy, as well as the weight that should be
accorded his declarations are to be determined by the Rules on
Evidence. And in this connection, it has been held that the
uncorroborated testimony of an accused, when satisfactory and
convincing, may be the basis for a judgment of conviction of his co-
accused.
People v. Divinagracia, Sr. DOCTRINE:
1. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not
G.R. No. 207765, affect the veracity, substance, or weight of the witness' testimony.
July 26, 2017 Jurisprudence has held "youth and immaturity to be badges of truth
and sincerity" and has generally given leeway to minor witnesses
when relating traumatic incidents of the past.
2. When a rape victim's allegation is corroborated by a physician's
finding of penetration, "there is sufficient foundation to conclude the
existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge."
3. The self-serving defense of denial falters against the "positive
identification by, and straightforward narration of the victim."
People v. Corpuz y Flores DOCTRINE:
An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason,
G.R. No. 208013, ineligible from testifying in court. "He or she can be a witness,
July 3, 2017 depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows." If an
intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible
in court.
Vivian Sanchez vs. PSUPT. DOCTRINE:
Marc Darroca Additionally, hearsay evidence, which is generally considered
inadmissible under the rules of evidence, may be considered in a writ of
G.R. No. 242257, amparo proceeding if required by the unique circumstances.
October 15, 2019
Separation is not tantamount to strained marital relations. Spouse’s
supposed membership in the NPA is not an offense envisioned by
jurisprudence which would create an exception to the general rule of
marital disqualification.
Concha v. People DOCTRINE:

| 4F – 19’20 | 46
 G.R. No. 208114,
October 3, 2018
People v. Cogaed
G.R. No. G.R. No. 200334,
July 30, 2014
Cirera v. People
G.R. No. 181843.
July 14, 2014
Torres y Salera v. People
G.R. No. 206627, within the office of the trial courts. It is a question of fact not
Date:January 18, 2017
Rule 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumption
Office of the Ombudsman v DOCTRINE:
Fetalvero
G.R. No.211450,
July 23, 2018
Tortona v. Gregorio
G.R. No. 202612,
January 17, 2018
Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Arreza vs. Toyo
G.R. No. 213198,
July 1, 2019
| 4F – 19’20 |
To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to
present a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the
frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person
matches the original description made by that witness when initially
reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process of
identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.
DOCTRINE:
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an
opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable cause. The
court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause.
Nevertheless, mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed about him.
DOCTRINE:
Inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, especially with respect to the "principal
occurrence and positive identification" of petitioner. Slight
inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they
show that the testimony was not rehearsed.
DOCTRINE:
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a function properly
reviewable by this Court. The trial court’s findings on the matter are
entitled to great weight and given great respect and may only be
disregardedif there are facts and circumstances which were
overlooked by the trial court and which would substantially alter the
results of the case.
Complainants in administrative proceedings carry the burden of
proving their allegations with substantial evidence or such "relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.
DOCTRINE:
Documents acknowledged before a notary public are presumed to
have been duly executed. The burden of proving that thumbmarks
affixed on it by an ostensible party is false and simulated lies on the
party assailing its execution.This presumption may be contradicted
by clear and convincing evidence.
DOCTRINES:
1. In actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is
indispensable that the petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment
granting the divorce, but also the alien spouse's national law. Both the
foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse's national law, purported
to be official acts of a sovereign authority, can be established by
47
 complying with the mandate of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the
Rules of Court.

2. A published treatise may be admitted as tending to prove the truth of

its content if: (1) the court takes judicial notice; or (2) an expert witness
testifies that the writer is recognized in his or her profession as an expert
in the subject.
Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. DOCTRINES:
National Power Corp. It is basic that any material presented as evidence will not be
considered unless duly admitted by the court before which it is
G.R. Nos. 181683 & 184568 presented. Just as basic is that a private document offered as
October 08, 2015 authentic evidence shall not be admitted unless its due execution
and authenticity are established in the manner specified under the
Rules of Court.
Imperial v. Heirs of Sps. DOCTRINE:
Bayaban Private documents must be authenticated, or their due execution and
authenticity proven, per Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 197626,
October 3, 2018
William G. Kwong DOCTRINE:
Management, Inc. vs. Written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
Diamond Homeowners & tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines are public documents.
Residents Association Public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in them.

G.R. No. 211353,

June 10, 2019
Racho v Seiichi Tanaka DOCTRINE:
Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law
G.R. No. 199515, of the foreign spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved
June 25, 2018 as a fact before the Regional Trial Court. The Filipino spouse may
be granted the capacity to remarry once our courts find that the
foreign divorce was validly obtained by the foreign spouse according
to his or her national law, and that the foreign spouse's national law
considers the dissolution of the marital relationship to be absolute.
Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
People vs. ZZZ DOCTRINE:
In the absence of direct evidence, a resort to circumstantial evidence is
G.R. No. 228828, usually necessary in proving the commission of rape. This is because
July 24, 2019 the crime is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left
to testify for him or herself. It becomes even more difficult when the
complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim
could no longer testify.
Macayan, Jr. y Malana v. DOCTRINE:
People Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due
process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an
G.R. No. 175842, accused to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”
March 18, 2015
People v. Baron DOCTRINE:
Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that

| 4F – 19’20 | 48
 G.R. No. 213215,
January 11, 2016
Richard Ricalde vs. People DOCTRINE:
of the Philippines The “variance doctrine” states that when there is variance between the
G.R. No. 211002,
January 21, 2015
People v Chavez
G.R. No. G.R. No. 207950,
September 22, 2014
Daayata v. People
G.R. No. 205745,
March 8, 2017
People v. Nuñez
G.R. No. 209342 ,
October 4, 2017
People v. Que y Utuanis
G.R. No. 212994,
January 31, 2018
People v. Pangan
G.R. No. 206965,
November 29, 2017
| 4F – 19’20 |
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is
more than one circumstances; (b) The facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is
included in the offense proved. An offense charged necessarily includes
the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients
of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former continue or form
part of those constituting the latter.
DOCTRINE:
The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may
be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
conviction of an accused.
DOCTRINE:
Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the
immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The
prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on relative
strength as against that of the defense. Should the prosecution fail
to discharge its burden, acquittal must follow as a matter of course.
DOCTRINE:
To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to
present a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the
frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person
matches the original description made by that witness when initially
reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process of
identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.
DOCTRINE:
Under Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
conviction in criminal actions requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Compliance with RA 9165 Section 21's chain of custody
requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-
compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti
around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act revolve.
DOCTRINE:
In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the State has the burden of
proving not only the elements of the offense but also the corpus
delicti of the charge. The prosecution must establish the existence
49

People v. Borja
G.R. No. 199710,
2 August 2017
People vs San Jose
G.R. No. 206916,
July 3, 2017
People v. Balao y Lopez
G.R. No. 207805,
November 22, 2017
Lucido v. People
G.R. No. 217764
August 7, 2017
Bacerra vs People
G.R. No. 204544;
July 3, 2017
Richard Ricalde vs. People of DOCTRINE:
the Philippines
G.R. No. 211002,
January 21, 2015
| 4F – 19’20 |
of the illicit drugs. It must also prove that the integrity of the corpus
delicti has been maintained because the confiscated drug, being the
proof involved, is not promptly recognizable through sight and can
be tampered or replaced.
DOCTRINE:
Although the crime of kidnapping can only be committed by a private
individual, the fact that the accused is a public official does not
automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping
against him. The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she
acted in furtherance of his or her official functions.
DOCTRINE:
The prosecution has the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. If it fails to discharge this burden, courts have the
duty to render a judgment of acquittal.
DOCTRINE:
The testimony of a single eyewitness to a crime, even if uncorroborated,
produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt as long as it is credible
and positive. A considerable lapse of time between the commission of
the offense and the identification of the accused in open court, by itself,
would be insufficient to overturn a finding of guilt.|||
DOCTRINE:
Through its firsthand observations during the entire proceedings, the
trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion,
whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe
DOCTRINE:
The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence
involves the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute
the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of
the evidence. Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without
drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand,
"indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw
an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence." The probative
value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior
to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish
between "direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from
which the existence of a fact may be inferred." The same quantum
of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The “variance doctrine” states that when there is variance between the
offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is
included in the offense proved. An offense charged necessarily includes
the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients
of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
50
 latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former continue or form
part of those constituting the latter.
DST Movers Corporation v. DOCTRINE:
People’s General Insurance A determination of where the preponderance of evidence lies is a factual
Corporation issue which, as a rule, cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.
When, however, the sole basis of the trial court for ruling on this issue
G.R. No. 198627, is evidence that should not have been admitted for being hearsay, this
January 13, 2016 court will embark on its own factual analysis and will, if necessary,
reverse the rulings of the lower courts. A traffic accident investigation
report prepared by a police officer relying solely on the account of a
supposed eyewitness and not on his or her personal knowledge is not
evidence that is admissible as an exception to the Hearsay Rule.

People v. Comoso y DOCTRINE:

Turemutsa In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, to secure conviction, the
prosecution must prove the following elements: "(1) proof that the
G.R. No. 211293, Date: April 10, transaction or sale took place[;] and (2) the presentation in court of the
2019 corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." Evidence proving that a
transaction took place "must be credible and complete." In buy-bust
operations, this is usually proven by the testimony of the poseur-buyer.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
(R.A. 9165)
Ruel Tuano y Hernandez vs. DOCTRINE:
People Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure
the integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and
GR. No. 205871 (Resolution), drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule
June 27, 2016 amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the
accused.
Howard Lecano y Carreon DOCTRINE:
v. People A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made
in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
G.R. No. 214490, performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the
January 13, 2016 performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the
record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard
conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular
on its face, the presumption cannot arise.
People v. Comoso y DOCTRINE:
Turemutsa In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, to secure conviction, the
prosecution must prove the following elements: "(1) proof that the
G.R. No. 211293, transaction or sale took place[;] and (2) the presentation in court of the
April 10, 2019 corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." Evidence proving that a
transaction took place "must be credible and complete." In buy-bust
operations, this is usually proven by the testimony of the poseur-buyer.
People v. Cabellon y DOCTRINE:
Cabañero The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an
essential part of the chain of custody. Absent

| 4F – 19’20 | 51
 G.R. No. 207229,
September 20, 2017
People v. Sagana y De DOCTRINE:
Guzman
G.R. No. 208471
August 2,2017
People vs Gloria Caiz
GR. No. 215340;
July 13, 2016
People v. Jaafar
Tambuyong
G.R. No. 219829,
January 18, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE:
Martin Asaytuno
G.R. No. 245972,
December 2, 2019
People vs. Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 229053,
July 17, 2019
Veriño vs. People
G.R. No. 225710,
June 19, 2019
People v. Ternida y Munar
G.R. No. 212626,
June 3, 2019
| 4F – 19’20 |
this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of doubt on the
identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence,
creating reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the
accused.
The prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of the
seized items. While non-conformity with the strict directive of Section
21 is not essentially prejudicial to its claim, the lapses committed by
the police officers must be recognized and explained in terms of their
justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.
DOCTRINE:
Failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti
in dangerous drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on
the ground of reasonable doubt.
y DOCTRINE:
While it may be true that noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution’s case provided that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officers, this exception will only be
triggered by the existence of a ground that justifies departure from
the general rule.
The drugs allegedly obtained from accused-appellants should have
been immediately marked at the moment of arrest and seizure.
The total absence of mandatory witnesses during apprehension, and
those same witnesses’ inadequacy during inventory and photographing,
reveal a sorely lacking attempt at complying with statutory
requirements.
DOCTRINE:
Whenever there is an unjustified noncompliance with the chain of
custody requirements, the prosecution cannot invoke the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty to conveniently disregard
such lapse. Noncompliance obliterates proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, warranting an accused's acquittal.
DOCTRINE:
State agents are expected to strictly comply with the legal safeguards
under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. Should there
be noncompliance, the prosecution must prove that a justifiable cause
existed and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
were preserved for the saving clause in Section 21 to be appreciated in
favor of State agents.
DOCTRINE:
The photographing and physical inventory of the seized drugs must be
done immediately where seizure had taken place minimizes the
possibility that evidence may be planted. Noncompliance with this
legally mandated procedure, upon seizure, raises doubt that what was
52
 submitted for laboratory examination and as evidence in court was
seized from an accused.
People v. Sanchez DOCTRINE:
Although the testimonies differed on where the seized items were
G.R. No. 216014, marked, the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated that this
March 14, 2018 discrepancy did not affect the integrity or evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti.
People v. Saragena DOCTRINE:
The Court emphasizes that "ostensibly approximate compliance"
G.R. No. 210677, does not suffice; rather, there must be actual compliance with
August 23, 2017 Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Not doing so is tantamount to
a failure to establish the corpus delicti, a crucial element of the crime
charged.
People v. Segundo y Iglesias DOCTRINE:
Although the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs is solely by
G.R. No. 205614, itself not a reason for acquittal, this instance accentuates the
July 26, 2017 importance of conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 that
the law enforcers in this case miserably failed to do so. If initially there
were already significant lapses on the marking, inventory, and
photographing of the alleged seized items, a doubt on the integrity of
the corpus delicti concomitantly exists. The presumption of regularity in
the performance will never be stronger than the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.
People v. Holgado DOCTRINE:
Failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
G.R. No. G.R. No. 207992, implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish
August 11, 2014 the identity of the corpus delicti. The omission naturally raises grave
doubt about any search being actually conducted and warrants the
suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.

Four (4) links should be established in the chain of custody of the

confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
People v. Dimaano DOCTRINE:
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in cases
G.R. No. 174481, involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may be
February 10, 2016 excused so long as the identity of the dangerous drugs is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the chain of custody is established with moral
certainty.
Coronel y Santillan v. People DOCTRINE:
When the requirements under Section 21 (a) of the implementing
G.R. No. 214536, rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 were complied with,

| 4F – 19’20 | 53
 March 13, 2017 the non-presentation of a forensic chemist during trial would not
cause an acquittal in illegal drug cases.
B.P. BLG. 129
Jurisdiction
First Sarmiento Property DOCTRINE:
Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject
Bank of Communications matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of
the principal action or relief sought must be ascertained. If the
G.R. No. 202836, principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property,
June 19,2018 then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the
principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real
property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results
as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Philippine Ports Authority v. DOCTRINE:
City of Davao When a tax case is pending on appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals,
the Court of Tax Appeals has the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin the
G.R. No. 190324, levy of taxes and the auction of a taxpayer’s properties in relation to
June 6,2018 that case.
Manila Electric Co. v. Nordec DOCTRINE:
Philippines The Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to review, and even
reverse, the factual findings of the trial court.
G.R. Nos. 196020 & 196116
National Power Corp. v. DOCTRINE:
Provincial Government of The Court of Tax Appeals is vested with the exclusive appellate
Bataan jurisdiction over, among others, appeals from the "decisions, orders
or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally
G.R. No. 180654, decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or
March 6, 2017 appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, the nature of an action is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of
the relief sought.
Spouses Aboitiz vs Spouses DOCTRINE:
Po An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so
exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other
G.R. 208450; remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final
June 7, 2017 resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking
jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. An action for reconveyance, on
the other hand, is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful
owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to
transfer or reconvey the land to him. The Court of Appeals has
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of Regional Trial Courts whereas actions for
reconveyance of real property may be filed before the Regional Trial
Courts or the Municipal Trial Courts, depending on the assessed
value of the property involved.

| 4F – 19’20 | 54
 Pascual, Sr. v. Caniogan DOCTRINE:
Credit and Development An appeal of the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari against an
Cooperative interlocutory order of a lower court becomes moot and academic where,
during its pendency, judgment on the merits has been rendered in the
G.R. No. 172980 main case and has become final and executory.
July 22, 2015
An intra-cooperative dispute between two officers on one hand and the
Board of Directors on the other falls within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts, not of the Labor Arbiter.
Secretary of the Department DOCTRINE:
of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs It is settled that the Regional Trial Courts, sitting as special agrarian
of Abucay courts, have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
determination of the value of just compensation. Nonetheless, the
G.R. No. 186432, Department of Agrarian Reform still exercises primary jurisdiction to
March 12, 2019 preliminarily determine this value. When the issue in a case hinges
on whether a beneficiary has made insufficient or no payments for
the land awarded to him or her, primary administrative jurisdiction is
under the Department of Agrarian Reform.
City of General Santos v. DOCTRINE:
Commission on Audit It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of
administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-
G.R. No. 199439, created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but
April 22, 2014 also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to
enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only
respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with
unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of
discretion.

Batac vs. Office ofthe DOCTRINE:

Ombudsman Absent a showing that the Office of the Ombudsman acted in an
"arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner," the Supreme
G.R. No. 216949. Court will not interfere with its exercise of discretion in determining the
July 3, 2019 existence of probable cause.
Department of Finance – DOCTRINE:
Revenue Integrity Protection The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It
Service vs. Edita Yambao is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses
of the evidence on had needed to make a finding of probable cause.
G.R. No. 220632 and 220634,
November 6, 2019
Lee v Sales DOCTRINE:
A pending motion for reconsideration of a decision issued by the
G.R. No.205294, Office of the Ombudsman does not stay its immediate execution.
July 4, 2018 This is clear under the rules of the Office of the Ombudsman and our
jurisprudence

| 4F – 19’20 | 55