BAR OPS 1

SUBMISSION No. 1
CASE NO. 1-14

Submitted by:
JAN VEAH P. CAABAY
LLB-IV

Submitted to:
ATTY. ALLAN B. CARLOS
Professorial Lecturer

Date Submitted: 09/25/2020

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. People of the Philippines Vs. Joel Limson y Ferrer, et al.

G.R. No. 233533. June 30, 2020
2. Edgar T. Carreon Vs. Mario Aguillon and Betty P. Lopez
G.R. No. 240108. June 29, 2020
3. Mathew Constancio M. Santamaria Vs. Atty. Raul O. Tolentino
A.C. No. 12006. June 29, 2020
4. People of the Philippines Vs. Lucille M. David
G.R. No. 233089. June 29, 2020
5. Jesus David Vs. Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal, et al.
A.C. No. 12103. June 23, 2020
6. People of the Philippines Vs. Jefferson Bacares
G.R. No. 243024. June 23, 2020
7. People of the Philippines Vs. PO1 Dennis Jess Esteban Lumikid
G.R. No. 242695. June 23, 2020
8. People of the Philippines Vs. Reggie Briones y Duran
G.R. No. 240217. June 23, 2020
9. Jose Tapales Villarosa Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 233155-63. June 23, 2020
10. People of the Philippines Vs. Jonathan Maylon y Alvero alias “Jun Puke”
and Arnel Estrada y Glorian
G.R. No. 240664. June 22, 2020
11. Helen L. Say, et al. Vs. Gabriel Dizon
G.R. No. 227457. June 22, 2020
12. Dr. Maria Encarnacion R. Legaspi Vs. Atty. Florencio D. Gonzales
A.C. No. 12076. June 22, 2020
13. People of the Philippines Vs. Cesaria Basio Vertudes and Henry Basio
Vertudes
G.R. No. 220725. October 16, 2019
14. Moises G. Coro Vs. Montano B. Nasayao
G.R. No. 235361. October 16, 2019
1. People of the Philippines Vs. Joel Limson y Ferrer, et al.
G.R. No. 233533. June 30, 2020

FACTS:

Joey Meneses y Cano together with his co-accused, Joel Limson and Camilo Balila,
was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. On November 27,2013, a
confidential informant approached a member of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operations Group (CAIDISOG), to report a drug trade being conducted by an unidentified
male driver of Elf Truck. A day after, the informant personally reported to the Intelligence
Office of the Urduha Police Station that the said driver made a call to him and had one pack
of marijuana worth Three Thousand Pesos. Due to time constraints, the police officers
failed to put on blotter transaction and the serial numbers of the three one thousand peso
bills. The exchange was successful but for security reasons Meneses and his companions
was not arrested. Instead, PO2 Dela Cruz negotiated with Meneses if he could make
another delivery for a pack of marijuana and “shabu”.
On December 11,2013, the confidential informant informed PO2 Dela Cruz that
Meneses was looking for him and they could meet in front of CB Mall. On even date the
buy-bust operation was set but for security reasons the team did not put on blotter the buy-
bust operation, as well as the serial numbers of the money. On the arrival of Meneses, he
brought out from his shirt a marijuana brick and a sachet of “shabu” from his left side
pocket and asked PO2 Dela Cruz if he was going to buy them. PO2 Dela Cruz responded
positively and was instructed to hand over the money to one identified as Balila. After the
exchange, Meneses, Balila, and Limson was arrested. Proper inventory and taking of
photographs were conducted as witnessed by
The RTC find Meneses guilty beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Balila. The CA
affirmed. Meneses argues that there is failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the
existence of an agreed consideration in the alleged sale and, therefore, he should be
acquitted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: Whether there is lack of existence of an agreed consideration

HELD:

No. The sale was already consummated by the time the brick of marijuana and the
sachet of “shabu” were delivered and received by PO2 Dela Cruz after the buy-bust money
was handed to Meneses, through the other accused, Balila, as payment for the illegal
drugs. By the time of relinquishing the physical possession of the illegal drugs, Meneses,
effectively accepted the offer of five thousand pesos as his payment for the illegal drugs.
Regardless of the amount of the consideration, in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
most important part of the buy-bust operation is the actual exchange of the buy-bust money
and the subject drug.
2. Edgar T. Carreon Vs. Mario Aguillon and Betty P. Lopez
G.R. No. 240108. June 29, 2020

FACTS:

This case stemmed from a complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney’s
fees filed by respondent Mario Aguillon against Edgar Carreon and his wife before the
RTC. The RTC ordered, upon Aguillon’s motion, declared the defendants in default for
failure to file their responsive pleading within the reglementary period despite receipt of
summons and a copy of the complaint through their “son” at their residence. Eventually the
RTC rendered a decision in favor of Aguillon and ordered the defendants, among others, to
pay the amount of P47,410. The RTC’s decision attained finality and a writ of execution
was issued. Consequently, the Sheriff levied on the property belonging to the defendants
which was purportedly their family home. The property was thereafter sold at a public
auction where the highest bidder thereof was respondent Betty Lopez. Thereafter, a Final a
Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor.
Lopez filed a petition for cancellation of TCT registered in the name of the defendant
and for the issuance of a new one in her name. The RTC issued an Order requiring the
defendants to appear, however, the Return of Service did not reflect upon them of a copy.
Nonetheless the RTC proceeded to hear the petition and issued an Order granting the
same. The defendants were then directed to surrender their Owner’s Dupllicate Copy of the
TCT while the Register of Deeds was ordered to cancel the same and to issue a new one
in the name of Lopez. Subsequently Lopez filed a Motion to Publish the Order of the RTC
granting the petition for cancellation of the defendant’s title. Despite the absence of any
affidavit from the Process Server or postman stating the defendant’s address could not be
located, the RTC granted the motion.
On June 22,2017 Carreon learned that they were about to be ousted from their family
home when he received a letter from the City Government of Davao with the writ of
possession attached thereto. It was only then that he discovered all the proceedings that
transpires without their knowledge and participation. Left with no legal recourse, Carreon,
by himself, filed the Annulment Petition before the CA on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction
and extrinsic fraud premised on the improper/invalid service of summons.
In a Resolution dated July 28,2017, the CA dismissed the petition on procedural
grounds. Aggrieved, Carreon files a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation. In a
Resolution dated February 19,2018 the CA reconsidered its original ruling, stating that the
procedural infirmities in Carreon’s petition have already been rectified. Hence the CA
dismissed the Annulment Petition entirely. Focusing on the CA’s disposition of the case on
the merits, Carreon the filed on March 8,2018 a Motion for Reconsideration of the February
19,2018 Resolution. The CA noted without action the said motion, opining that it was a
second motion for reconsideration which shall no longer be entertained for being a
prohibited pleading.

ISSUE: Whether the CA correctly treated Carreon’s March 8, 2018 Motion for
Reconsideration as second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading

HELD:
 No. Carreon’s March 8,2018 Motion for Reconsideration can hardly be considered as a
second motion for reconsideration as contemplated by the Rules. In fact, the aforesaid
motion should have actually been treated as a first motion for reconsideration because it
assailed the CA’s reconsidered ruling (the Resolution dated February 19,2018), and not its
original Resolution dated July 28,2017. The CA’s February 19,2018 Resolution is a new
ruling based on legal grounds that are totally different from its original July 28,2017
Resolution; hence, when Carreon filed the March 8,2018 Motion for Reconsideration, he
was technically filing a first motion for reconsideration of the February 19,2018 Resolution
wherein the CA, for the first time, traversed the merits of his Annulment Petition. As such,
the prohibition on the filing of a second motion for reconsideration found in Sec. 2, Rule 52
of the Rules did not come into play.
3. Mathew Constancio M. Santamaria Vs. Atty. Raul O. Tolentino
A.C. No. 12006. June 29, 2020

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Matthew Constacio O. Santamaria

(complainant) against Atty. Raul O. Tolentino (respondent) for violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainant alleged that respondent
violated his lawyer’s oath and the CPR when he drafted and notarized a document known
as Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (IGPA) which made possible the conveyance of
ten real properties owned by his late mother Miriam Maglana to his father, Manuel
Santamaria. When Manuel filed a criminal complaint for adultery against Miriam,
respondent appeared as her counsel and represented the latter in the RTC where the case
remained unresolved for an unreasonable length of time. When Miriam was already dying
of cancer and in dire need of money, she wrote a letter to Supreme Court Administrator
Christopher Lock thereby pleading for relief from the delay of the case. The RTC eventually
rendered a decision dismissing the case in favor of Miriam. Manuel elevated the adverse
judgment to the CA. While the case was pending in the appellate court, Miriam died of
cancer. Unfortunately, however, respondent, being her counsel of record, failed to inform
the court of his client’s death. Worse, he neglected to file an Appellee’s Brief in violation of
the lawyer’s oath and the CPR.
In his defense, respondent denies having committed the unethical and immoral acts
which complainant claims he did. The Investigating Commissioner recommends that the
complaint be dismissed as there was no showing of malice, ill-will, irregularity or any
misconduct on the part of the respondent and that an attorney enjoys the presumption of
innocence and as an officer of the court.

ISSUE: Whether respondent need not be disbarred

HELD:

Yes. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction given to a lawyer. It is
with high regard that the Court has repeatedly held in various cases that contrary to the
penalty that complainant is seeking to be imposed against respondent, the power to disbar
or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive
principle, with great caution and only for most weighty reasons. It should only be imposed
in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the Bar. Hence, the Court only reprimanded Atty. Raul
Tolentino for failing to observe his duty to the Court and reminded that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
4. People of the Philippines Vs. Lucille M. David
G.R. No. 233089. June 29, 2020

FACTS:

Several criminal cases of Estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code was filed against Lucille David, accused-appellant. She was the sole proprietor
of JASIA Manpower Services. Accused-appellant allegedly collected placement fees from
several applicants whom she promised with overseas employment but the latter were never
deployed and were not able to recover the amount they deposited despite mediation
efforts.
Accused-appellant argued, among others, that the transactions happened in 2008 when
she still had her license. Thus she cannot be held liable for Estafa. The RTC find accused-
appellant guilty of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale under RA 8042 and the
crime of Estafa defined and punished under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC. The
CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether the accused-appellant guilty of Estafa

HELD:

Yes. The elements of Estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC are as
follows: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means;(2) such
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;(3) the offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his
money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
The fact that accused-appellant had a license does not negate the fact that accused-
appellant employed deceit against private respondents. Here, the prosecution was able to
prove that accused-appellant misrepresented to the private complainants that she could
provide them with overseas employment when in fact there was none at the time she made
such misrepresentation.
5. Jesus David Vs. Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal, et al.
A.C. No. 12103. June 23, 2020

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed against six lawyers who allegedly filed various
motions so as to delay the execution of a judgment that has been long been final and
executory. Jesus David alleged that the respondent lawyers has conspired in filing frivolous
motions thereby stalling the MCTC Decision in the case of Leonardo T. David v. Danny
Cordova, et al., a case of forcible entry, for almost 16 years. The Report and
Recommendation of the IBP suspends the six lawyers from practice of law for one and
three years to dismissal but reversed upon motion for consideration of the respondent
lawyers.

ISSUE: Whether respondent lawyers committed acts in violation of their Oath and Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. The Court disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of
Governors and holds that respondent lawyers should be held administratively liable.
Procedural rules are designed to serve the ends of justice. The rule ensure that the
substantive rights of the parties are protected; hence, they must not be trifled with to the
prejudice of any person.
The judgment on the forcible entry case remains unexecuted due to the filing of
frivolous motions orchestrated by the respondent lawyers with the sole intention to stall or
to delay the enforcement of a final judgment. Ultimately, the dilatory tactics committed by
respondent lawyers encroached upon the rights of David as the heir of the winning party in
the MCTC Decision.
6. People of the Philippines Vs. Jefferson Bacares
G.R. No. 243024. June 23, 2020

FACTS:

Jefferson Bacares was found guilty of murder of Calrita Lubian-Espero by the RTC, and
was affirmed by the CA, based on the testimonies. First Alvin Almoite overheard the
appellant whisper to his mother, “PUTANG INANG MATANDA NA YAN PAPATAYIN KO
YAN”. Second, Micheal Sibayan, who was then watering the plants at the backyard of the
victim’s house, heard a thud inside the victim’s house. Thereafter, he saw a restless
nervous appellant coming out of Espero’s house holding a pointed metal and swinging it
and was going to the direction of his (appellant’s) house. He also noticed a blood stain on
the shirt he was wearing. After watering his plants, he also noticed that appellant changed
into a clean shirt. But when he asked him why he looked uneasy, appellant answered that
nothing was bothering him.
Appellant argued that the circumstantial pieces of evidence presented by the
prosecution do not collectively constitute a clear pattern and unbroken chain that would
lead to a conclusion that he committed the crime charged against him.

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the
crime charged by merely relying on questionable circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution.

HELD:

No. Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as that evidence that proves a fact or
series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. It is not a
weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis direct evidence, as case law has consistently recognized
that it may even surpass the latter in weight and probative force.
The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of
guilt is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at
the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.29 In this wise, the Court has held that
"[c]ircumstantial evidence is like a 'tapestry made up of strands which create a pattern
when interwoven.'
Although appellant has also pointed out some inconsistencies in the witnesses’
testimonies, such are insignificant and do not affect the credibility of the entire testimonies.
Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the
credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime.
7. People of the Philippines Vs. PO1 Dennis Jess Esteban Lumikid
G.R. No. 242695. June 23, 2020

FACTS:

On the evening of June 14, 2014, Desiderio “Jessie” Camangyan and his common-law
partner, Ruth Matinong, attended an amateur singing contest in Barangay Old Macopa,
manay, Davao Oriental to which Jessie was invited by Barangay Captain Romeo Antolin to
host the event. At one point, Matinong went to the restroom. On her way to the restroom,
she observed two men, wearing black shirt and camouflage pants, beside the comfort room
talking and intently watching Jessie with suspicious eyes. Matinong told Jessie, and Jessie
assured Matinong that they were part of Barangay Cpatain Antolin’s security personnel who
were to guard the event. At about 10:30 p.m. Matinong heard a gunshot and allegedly saw
one of the suspicious-looking men shoot Jessie from behind causing Jessie’s death. The
following day Matinong gave the description of the gunman whom she saw minutes before
Jessie was killed. When Matinong was shown the copies of the pictures of seven police
personnel assigned in Manay, Davao Oriental, she identified the accused-appellant, PO1
Lumikid, as the onw who shot Jessie.

The RTC convicted PO1 Lumikid of the crime of Murder. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether the testimony of Matinong sufficient to convict PO1 Lumikid

HELD:

No. The greatest care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused,
especially when this identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case
totally depends on the reliability of the identification. This level of care and vigor when, as in
the present case, the issue goes beyond pure credibility into constitutional dimensions
arising from the due process rights of the accused.

In the present case records show that PO1 Lumikid’s arrest an d eventual conviction were
wholly based on the testimony of Matinong who testified as an eyewitness and who
identified PO1 Lumikd as the perpetrator of the crime. To the prosecution, the trial court,
and the appellate court, an eyewitness identification coming from the common-law partner
of the victim appeared to have been enough to qualify the identification as fully positive and
credible. Thus, none of them appeared to have fully examined the real evidentiary worth of
the identification Matinong made.
8. People of the Philippines Vs. Reggie Briones y Duran
G.R. No. 240217. June 23, 2020

FACTS:

On July 19,2006 Reggie Briones y Duran went to FFF’s house where FFF was alone.
FFF, being a 12-year old girl, considered Briones as her “kuya” since they are neighbors
and a close family friend, let Briones inside the house. Upon arriving, Briones asked FFF to
increase the volume of the television as he closed the front door. Briones then
subsequently raped FFF. FFF was threatened by Briones that he would kill her and
members of her family if FFF should tell anybody what happened. The sexual encounters
between FFF and Briones were repeated eight more times. On December 2006, FFF’s
parents learned her ordeal when she missed her monthly period. Upon examination, it was
revealed on January 1,2007 that FFF was pregnant. Briones denied the accusation against
him and insisted that he and FFF became sweethearts in July 2006 but hid they
relationship from FFF’s parents because FFF was only 12 years old at that time while
Briones is 19 years old.
The RTC rendered its Decision finding Briones guilty of the crime rape and ruled that
“sweetheart theory” is not a defense to offenses under RA 7610. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether “sweetheart theory” is not a defense to offenses under RA 7610

HELD:

Yes. Time and again the Court has held that in rape, the “sweetheart” defense must be
proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and,
second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as
the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust. Thus,
Briones, can offer love letters to prove that FFF was his lover, but the fact that they were
sweethearts does not necessarily establish FFF’s consent to the sexual act.
9. Jose Tapales Villarosa Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 233155-63. June 23, 2020

FACTS:

The case stemmed from the issuance of Extraction Permits signed by Jose Tapales
Villarosa, who was then the Mayor of San Jose, to quarry operators. Ruben Solded, the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer of Occidental Mindoro issued a
Cease-and-Desist Orders against these quarry operators, notifying them that it is the
Provincial Governor who has the sole authority to issue extraction permits and reminding
them of the penalties that may be imposed upon them under the applicable provisions of
the governing Provincial Tax Ordinance. Petitioner wrote Soledad a letter explaining his
position and stating that Soledad is guilty of “mockery of the whole legislative process” in
considering certain provisions of the existing and applicable Provincial Tax Ordinance as
repealed, and in supposedly giving effect to a proposed amendment of the said Ordinance
without the benefit of public hearing and publication as required by law. Further, he
manifested that he “shall not recognize the cease-and-desist order until such time that a
proper legal process is adhered to by the Provincial Government.”
Soledad responded by claiming that, pursuant to Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 2005-
004 of Occidental Mindoro, as well as the Local Government Code of 1991, the authority to
issue permits for the extraction of sand and gravel within the province resides exclusively
with the Provincial Governor.
Soledad then filed before the Office of Ombudsman a Complaint against petitioner. The
Office of Ombudsman found probable cause to hold petitioner liable for issuing extraction
permits and directed the filing of the corresponding informations against the petitioner for
ten counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended. The Sandiganbayan found
petitioner guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan is correct is sentencing petitioner to imprisonment

HELD:

No. In order to hold a person liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following
elements must concur, to wit: (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in
the discharged of public officer’s administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) the act was
done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3)
the public officer caused undue injury to any party including the Government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.

The presence of the first and second elements are not disputed in the present case. As
to the third element, petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to prove that there was
evident bad faith on his part. The prosecution was unable to present sufficient evidence to
prove that in issuing the questioned extraction permits, petitioner was moved by clear,
notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another
or of a palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose operating with fugitive
design to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing. Anent the last element, the Court
finds no sufficient evidence to prove that the person in whose favor herein petitioner issued
the permits received unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
10. People of the Philippines Vs. Jonathan Maylon y Alvero alias “Jun Puke” and Arnel
Estrada y Glorian
G.R. No. 240664. June 22, 2020

FACTS:

In a Decision dated March 11, 2019, the Court affirmed the Decision dated February 23,
2018 of the CA finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable ground of violating
Section 11, Article II of RA 916, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002”. Aggrieved, accused-appellants timely moved for consideration. Meanwhile,
the Court notes the separate letters both dated June 28, 2019 from the Office of the
Overseer and the Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, informing the Court that Estrada had
already died on April 26, 2018, as evidence by his Certificate of death issued by the Office
of the Civil Register General.

ISSUE: Whether the Motion for Reconsideration will prosper even after Estrada’s death

HELD:

No. In view of Estrada’s supervening death, there is a need to reconsider and set aside
his conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and enter a new one dismissing
the same. Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, Estrada’s death prior to his final
conviction by the Court renders dismissible the criminal case against him. Article 89 (1) of
the RPC provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by death of the accused.
11. Helen L. Say, et al. Vs. Gabriel Dizon
G.R. No. 227457. June 22, 2020

FACTS:

This case stemmed from a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute
Sale filed by respondent Gabriel Dizon against one Robert Dizon and petitioners before
RTC. The said complaint was dismissed by the RTC on the ground of forum shopping after
it was shown that respondent had filed a similar complaint involving the same subject
matter, issue and relief. After the order of dismissal of the case, petitioners filed an Ex-
Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants’ Counterclaim for Hearing. The Notice of
Hearing dated November 25, 2013 signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, the parties were
informed that the case was set for hearing on March 13, 2014. Claiming that the notice was
a mere notification of the hearing, and not a formal order or resolution on their motion,
petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, or one day before the scheduled
hearing. On the other hand, respondent opposed the same claiming that the Judicial
Affidavits were filed out of time as provided under Section 2(a) of the JAR, which requires
that the same be filed not later than five days before the scheduled hearing. Petitioners
argued that March 13, 2014 hearing was for their ex-parte motion and not yet hearing of the
counterclaim itself. Hence, the five day period to file their Judicial affidavits under the JAR
had not yet commenced to run.
The RTC admitted the Judicial Affidavits of petitioners. CA set aside the RTC’s Orders,
holding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits
of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether CA erred in finding gravely abused of discretion on the part of RTC when
it belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners.

HELD:

Yes. Jurisprudence explains that “when no substantial rights are affected and the
intention to delay is not manifest with the corresponding submission x x x, it is sound
judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully
ventilated.” In this relation, the Court held that “courts have the prerogative to relax
compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty
to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right
to due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules
when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity, as in this case.
12. Dr. Maria Encarnacion R. Legaspi Vs. Atty. Florencio D. Gonzales
A.C. No. 12076. June 22, 2020

FACTS:

Maria Encarnacion Legaspi went to the residence of respondent Atty. Florencio

Gonzales to consult him about the presence of an illegal settler. A certain Romeo Aguarino
squatted on their property and despite the demand letters for him to leave, the latter kept
staying. In this regard, Legaspi asked Atty. Gonzales how much legal fees would be
charged in order that Aguarino may be removed from the property. Atty. Gonzales said that
his fee is P20,000 and that another P100,000 will be needed as an initial expense. After a
few days, Legaspi found out that Atty. Gonzales had become the legal counsel of Aguarino.
The case was amicably settled, whereby Aguarino was given money and a parcel of land
owned by Legaspi. Accordingly, Legaspi accused Atty. Gonzales of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In his Answer, Atty. Gonzales countered that no lawyer-client
relationship was established between him and Legaspi because no fee or charges have
been paid.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Gonzales is correct

HELD:

No. The lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client seeks the lawyer’s
advice upon a legal concern. From that moment on, the lawyer is bound to respect the
relationship and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client. The fact that no fees was
paid by Legaspi during their previous meeting do not excuse Atty. Gonzales in observing
the foregoing rule.
 13. People of the Philippines Vs. Cesaria Basio Vertudes and Henry Basio Vertudes
G.R. No. 220725. October 16, 2019

FACTS:
One of the regular assets of Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group
(SAIDSOTG) of Paranaque Police Station came to their office to give information about the
illegal selling of drugs in the area of Barangay Baclaran, Paranaque City by herein appellants
Cesaria and Henry. A buy-bust team was then organized. After coordinating with the PDEA
and conducting a short briefing, the team, together with their informant then proceeded to
Barangay Baclaran. The operation was successful, the transaction was completed and the
accused were apprehended in act of selling prohibited drugs. PO2 Ocampo marked at the
scene of the arrest the two plastic sachets subject of the sale and the other one recovered
from the pocket of Cesaria. However, since there was already a crowd forming at the area, the
team proceeded to the barangay hall of Baclaran. There, PO2 Ocampo prepared an inventory
of the recovered evidence which was witnessed therein by Barangay Ex-O Jaime Marzan and
Barangay Tanod Rene Eliserio. Photographs of the inventory were also taken therein by PO2
Julaton. The team then proceeded to their office to prepare the request for laboratory
examination of the contents of the recovered plastic sachets. The RTC found the appellants
guilty. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether the buy-bust team complied properly with the procedure laid down under
Section 21 of RA 9165

HELD:
In the case at bar, it is evident that the police officers, assuming that their story of a buy-
bust operation is even true, blatantly disregarded the requirements laid down under Section
21. In this connection, the Court has repeatedly held that Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,[28]
the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, strictly requires that: (1)
the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation;
(2) that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative
from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice.
It is thus obvious that the police failed to comply with the three-witnesses requirement
under Section 21. Although there were two Barangay Tanods that were present at the
Barangay Hall for the inventory and photography of the seized items, they are not the required
witnesses contemplated by the law. It should be emphasized that the law requires the
presence of an elected public official. A Barangay Tanod is not an elected official; they are
merely appointed by the Sangguniang Barangay
14. Moises G. Coro Vs. Montano B. Nasayao
G.R. No. 235361. October 16, 2019

FACTS:

Petitioner alleged that he was the owner of a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration
he found out that Montano B. Nasayao (respondent) acquired the subject property by way
of a forged Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS). He denied having received money in
consideration of the sale nor having personally appeared before the notary public, Pedro
Berro. On April 1, 1963, respondent's wife and children stated that on petitioner sold the
subject property to the respondent, his stepbrother. They further alleged that respondent
had the title of the property transferred in his name and thereafter, dutifully paid the
corresponding taxes as evidenced by Tax Declaration. Respondent was awarded Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 15011. Seven years later on petitioner approached
respondent's wife and son to buy back the land, but his offer was refused. Taking
advantage of respondent's illness, petitioner surreptitiously occupied the property. RTC
declared that the Deed of Absolute Sa
 BAR OPS 1
SUBMISSION No. 1
CASE NO. 1-14

Submitted by:
JAN VEAH P. CAABAY
LLB-IV

Submit
ATTY. ALLAN B. CA
Professorial Le

Date Submitted: 09
le as genuine, valid and binding. CA affirmed the RTC ruling.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Decision upholding the validity of the
subject DOAS.

HELD:

Petitioner disputes the foregoing findings and refutes the authenticity of the DOAS.

The question of whether the signatures of petitioner and his wife appearing in the April 1,
1963, DOAS are forgeries is a question of fact which is beyond this Court's jurisdiction
under the present petition. It bears stressing that the resolution of who between petitioner
and respondent is the. real owner of the subject property and able to prove their title and
claim over it will require reception and evaluation of evidence. In insisting that there is
forgery in the execution of the Deed of Sale, petitioner is, in effect, asking this Court to
make its own factual determination. He is not asking this Court to resolve which law
properly applies given the set of facts in this case. On the contrary, the allegations of
petitioner require a review of evidence as well as the determination of the truth or falsity of
the parties' allegations.