PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Mayor Caruncho, et.al.

G.R. No. L-57804 January 23,1984

Facts:

This petition for certiorari was raised against respondent for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent herein dismissed the case of slight physical injuries against mayor caruncho on the
reason of affidavit of desistance is complete and in accordance with the requirements of PD 1508
submitted by Reyes, who filed the criminal case.

Issue:

W/N the affidavit of desistance in a criminal case would not result to civil liability

HELD

The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The dismissal of the case is based upon their
compromise agreement, is an adjudication of the case on the merits which amounts to an acquittal, so that
the revival of the criminal case against the said Emiliano Caruncho, Jr. would violate the latter's
constitutional right against double jeopardy.

Under Section 2 of P.D. 1508, the Barangay Lupon has the authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for the amicable settlement of all disputes except (1)
Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; (2) Where one party is a
public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; (3) Offenses
punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00; (4) Offenses where there is no
private offended party; (5) Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may in the interest of
justice determine, upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Local Government.
 MALAYAN INSURANCE v. CA & LACSON et.al.

G.R. No. L-59919 November 26,1986

Facts:
The record shows that petitioner entered into an insurance contract where the respondent
insured his car for one year. The car was brought by the petitioner to the Carlos Jamelo's repair shop and
was stolen by its employees. In the event thereof,the accident and the damage of the car amounted to
P21,849.62.the accused were convicted in the criminal charged and respondent asks for indemnification
from his insurance. Petitioner herein refused to pay the private respondent contending that the driver of
the car at the time of the accident is not a duly licensed driver. Private respondent seek relief in the court
and had a favourable decision which was affirmed by the herein respondent Court of appeals. Hence this
petition for certiorari was raised by petitioner Malayan Insurance co Inc. against the respondent court of
appeals and private respondent Lacson,in affirming the decision of the CFI in ordering the petitioner to pay
the amount of P20,000.00,less deductible franchise,which is the maximum coverage of the insurance policy
and interest from the date of filing of the complaint,and the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and
expenses in litigation.

Issue:

W/N the insurance company covered damages in accident events arising from a criminal case.

HELD

The court affirmed the decision of the Court of appeals on the ground that the conviction of the
accused entitles the respondent to recover his insurance and the Arts. 1169, 1170, and 2209 of the Civil
Code. Thus, a debtor who is in delay (default) is liable for damages (Art. 1170) generally from extrajudicial
or judicial demand (Art. 1169) in the form of interest.
 PUERTO v. CA, RTC, CORTES, et.al.
G.R. No. 138210. June 06, 2002

Facts:

Petitioner herein brought a land from Mrs. Luna but did not have it titled before they executed a
contract of mortgaged to the respondents where it did not contain any stipulation of interest however it
states that if petitioner fails to pay the debt. The petitioner would foreclose the said house and lot.
Petitioner herein failed to pay the debt, hence, the house and lot was owned by the respondent. Petitioner
were given few more days to look for a house but petitioner refuses to leave the said house and
respondent filed a ejectment case against them. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent
to rent the house for the amount of P3000 pesos but only through verbal agreement and later made to a
contract of lessor and lessee. The petitioner was not able to pay the succeeding payment because of the
usurious demands of private respondents. Petitioner filed a case of declaration of nullity of the Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage. The case was dismissed by the CFI. On appeal, the decision was reversed hence this
petition of certiorari to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

W/N the usurious contract entered by the petitioner and respondent is valid or void.

HELD

The petition is granted and order the petitioner to pay the 150.000 plus 12% interest to the
respondent under section 2 of the Usury Law, the maximum rate of interest on a loan or forbearance of
money secured by a mortgage upon real estate the title to which is duly registered and the cancellation of
the land title by the respondents and returning it to the petitioner.
 BSP v. SANTAMARIA

G.R. No. 139885. January 13, 2003]

Petitioner BSP, thru its Prequalification, Bids & Awards Committee (PBAC), invited respondent herein to
submit a sealed proposal for Project Construction Management (PCM) services of petitioner’s Regional Unit Building in
Lucena City. Initially, respondent’s proposal amounted to P1,087,963.56 but this was later reduced to a lump sum fee
of P676,044.35, broken down into P59,278.86 pre-construction phase fee for two months and P616,765.49
construction/post-construction phase fee for the succeeding eight (8) months, or a total service period of 10 months.

Issue:

W/N the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent is entitled to the payment claimed for extended
services under the PCM Contractno.

HELD

No, we find no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the CIAC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Both the Court of Appeals and CIAC found that the PCM contract is purely lump sum and payments be made based on
"progress billings" only when it is completed within the original completion date. However, it also allowed additional
compensations for services rendered beyond the original completion date and as noted by the CIAC, any delays in this
case are solely attributable to BSP, hence it should bear any resulting losses. Apparently, petitioner would insist on its
own interpretation of the PCM contract. This cannot be, as it is not in accord with reason and the law. In interpreting a
contract, its provisions should not be read in isolation but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render
them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved. The various stipulations of
a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them
taken joint.
 Buayan Cattle Co.,Inc. vs Quintillian
G.R No.L-26970 March 19,1984

Facts:

Petitioner was a prior lessee in the actual, peaceful and continued possession at least since 1965 of the
disputed area until the private respondent de las Marias, on the strength of a pasture lease granted only in
1964, unilaterally removed the petitioner’s fences and immediately established his own boundary fence
580 hectares into the petitioner’s pasture land. The Secretary of Agriculture suspended the effectivity of
private respondent pasture lease agreement and there has been the issuance of preliminary injunction
against petitioner. Finally, the relocation survey caused by the private respondent to determine the exact
location of pasture land allegedly awarded to him is questioned as irregular for having been conducted by a
forest guard, not competent to do so as well as the validity of the said survey itself is also contested as not
having been made in accordance with the rules of Bureau of Forestry.

Issue:

W/N private respondent acquire lawful possession of the area

HELD

Private Respondent admits the presence of an actual possessor under a lease right in the disputed area
prior to his own entry and occupation thereof. Assuming that private respondent’s lease of right is equally
valid as that of the present possessor, here in, petitioner ,the former’s course of action should not have
been to destroy the petitioner’s fence and enter disputed area and set-up his own fence there in. Private
respondent should seek the aid of a competent court and not take the law into his own hands. Usurpation
is not such as a method of acquiring possession Civil Code provides: Art.536 In no case may possession be
acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects there to. He who
believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of
competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
 Bobis and Guadalupe vs. The provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte
G.R No. L-29838 March 18,1983

Facts:

The Petitioners appealed from the judgment of CFI of Cam. Norte when it dismissed the complaint for
annulment of an execution sale the subject of which is a parcel of land who has been sold to petitioners by
spouses Camino and Eco after a controversy involving one Ortega (who file a complaint against petitioners
and spouses) claiming recovery of the portion of land and the value of improvements there in. Parties
executed a compromise agreement and such was submitted to the court, the souses partially paid the
amount for the improvements as a result, a writ of execution was issued commanding respondent sheriff
and consequently levied upon the land in question at an execution sale to one Rivera.

Issue:

Whether or not the sale to Petitioners in fraud of creditors

HELD

No. The right of Rivera over the land is derived from a void execution sale. The rule, however, is not
presumed. As fraud is criminal in nature, it must be proved by clear preponderance of evidence. In order
that a contract may be rescinded as in fraud of creditors, it is essential that it be shown that both
contacting parties have acted maliciously and with fraud and for the purpose of prejudicing said creditors,
and that the latter are deprived by the transaction of all means by which they may effect collection of their
claims. All these must concur in a given case presence of only one of them is not enough. The writ of
execution is null and void and of no legal effect to the petitioners. Annulment of the writ of execution
carries with it annulment of sale made by the sheriff pursuant to said writ as well as the order of the court
approving the sale. In Yboleon vs. Sison, Court ruled that ―a judge or court, which sets aside a judgment
rendered upon consent of the parties and based on a compromise entered in to by them, which is
converted into such judgment, cannot amend or set it aside without the consent of said parties, or without
first having declared in an incidental preliminary hearing that such compromise is vitiated by any act of the
ground for nullity enumerated in Art.2038 of the Civil Code. Since modification of judgment was made
unilaterally in the writ of execution without any preliminary hearing, it was unjustified.
 PLDT vs NLRC
G.R No.L-58004 May 30,1983

Facts:

The petitioner questioned the decision of Labor Arbiter together with public respondent NLRC when it
dismissed the clearance to dismiss private respondents who are employees of petitioner and ordering their
reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights as well as other privileges and back wages. Prior to such,
private respondents were alleged to be involved in ―telehygeinic ― racket that cause inconvenience to
telephone users, they have been arrested and detained by military authorities, coming upon the knowledge
of petitioner he placed employees in preventive suspension, then after private respondents reported for
work but was refused by petitioner and latter filed application for clearance to dismiss private respondents
from employment while the latter filed their own complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issue:

W/N the denial of clearance to dismiss and the entitlement to back wages of private respondents,
justified

HELD

Yes. The petitioner not having proved nor substantiated any ground to justify its alleged loss of
confidence in the employees so as to authorize their dismissal based on the ground that we have to
recognize the Constitutional right of the employees to security of tenure. They not having given just and
valid causes to warrant termination of their employment. Art.280 New Labor Code as amended, their
reinstatement entitles them to payment of back wages. Considering, however that private respondent
employees have been laid off for over four years during which period they were not prevented from
deriving income from some other gainful activity, the court deems it fair that their back wages should be
limited to two years without deduction.
 Bagumbayan Corp. vs IAC and Sena
G.R No.L-66724 September 30,1984

Facts:

The petitioner corporation is the owner of the hotel where in the respondent with her family come into for
an evening show, a waiter was serving the private respondent’s table and the tray containing the drinks
was overturned and fell on her, she drenched, felt chill, and splinters from the broken glasses allegedly
destroyed her dress together with her handbag and shoes which cost P1000. She had to remove her dress
and under wear on the ladies room, was not given any towel to cover herself. She testified claiming moral
damages of 100,000 for herself and her husband due to embarrassment and that the management did not
even apologize that night. Also, an exemplary damages of the same amount to teach management a lesson.

Issue:

W/N private respondent be entitled to moral as well as exemplary damages

HELD

The instant case is not specifically mentioned in Art.2219 which refers to quasi-delict causing
physical injuries. Generally, there can be no recovery of moral damages if case is not mentioned in art.2219
and 2220. ― Embarrassment to which private respondent was exposed by the incident is not mental
anguish contemplated in Art.2217 for which moral damages can be recovered. While in the case award for
moral damages has some basis the grant of moral and exemplary damages is devoid of legal justification
because it is nor predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code Art.2217and 2219.
Petitioner ordered to pay private respondent P5, 000.00 to cover her actual damages, litigation expenses
and attorney’s fees.