MA. VILMA S. LABAD, plaintiff, v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES, defendant.

G. R. No. 139665. August 9, 2001.

Facts:

Labad, an employee of University of Southern Philippines (USP), was under probation

due to a complaint filed to her by the Parent-Teacher Association on February 1, 1996.
The complaints rooted on Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Unfitness as a teacher, which
involved incidents when Labad lied of the amount she paid for the yearbook, violation of
RA 7079 (Campus Journalism Act of 1991), no release of the said yearbook, and abuse of
students. The Investigation Committee, constructed by USP, held that there should be a
non renewal of Labad’s probationary status. The salient dates are summarized as
follows:

April 14, 1998- Civil Service affirmed the Investigation Committee’s decision
December 11, 1998- Civil services Committee denied Labad’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
December 28, 1998- Labad filed a Motion for Extension to file Petition to CA.
January 12, 1999- Labad filed a Petition for Review to CA.
February 17, 1999- Labad received a Resolution granting her Petition for Extension.
March 10, 1999- Labad received a Resolution from the CA dismissing her Petition for
Review.

The Court also stated that the Petiton for Review was filed beyond the extended period
which ended January 10, 1999.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Review filed by petitioner
before it on the ground that the petition was filed late.

Whether the extension period started on December 26,1998 or on December 28, 1998.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the date when the extension should take effect was on December
28, 1998 since December 26, 1998 fell on a Saturday. According to Sec 1, Rule 22 of the
Rules of Court, “if the last day of the period, as computed, falls on a Saturday, on Sunday
or on a legal holiday in a place where the Court sits, the time shall not run until the next
working day”. Therefore, the Petition for Review can be submitted until January 12,
1999. Henceforth, the petition was granted and remanded that the appellate court for
further proceedings.
 DOLINA V. VALLECERA

GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]

DOCTRINE:

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. If filiation is beyond
question, support follows as matter of obligation.

FACTS:

In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with aprayer for the issuance of a temporary
protection order against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged woman and child abuse
under RA 9262. In the pro forma complaint cherryl added a prayer for support for their
supposed child. She based such prayer on the latter’s certificate of live birth which listed
Vallecera ‘s employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of support as the RTC may
deem appropriate.

Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolina’s petition was essentially one

for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses, that he
was not the child’s father and that the signature in the birth certificate was not here. He
also added that the petition is a harassment suit intended to for him to acknowledge the
child as his and therefore give financial support.

RTC dismissed petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection

and denied her application for temporary support for her child?

HELD:

Yes.

RATIO:

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of
R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and
children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a protection
order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the
wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal
support. In this case neither her or her child lived with Vallecera.
 To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since
Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s
illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The child’s remedy is
to file through her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition.
If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short,
illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation
must be duly proved.

Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and
then demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where
the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.

Babiera v.Catotal
G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000

FACTS:

Presentacion B. Catotal filed a petition for the cancellation of the entry of birth

of Teofista Babiera. From the petition filed, Presentacion asserted the following:

a. that she was the only surviving child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera
and Hermogena Cariñosa, who died on May 26, 1996 and July 6, 1990 respectively;
b. that on September 20, 1996 a baby girl was delivered by “hilot” in the house of
spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera and without the knowledge of said spouses,
Flora Guinto, the mother of the child and a housemaid of spouses Eugenio and
Hermogena Babiera, caused the registration/recording of the facts of birth of her child,
by simulating that she was the child of the spouses Eugenio, then 65 years old and
Hermogena, then 54 years old, and made Hermogena Babiera appear as the mother by
forging her signature that petitioner, then 15 years old, saw with her own eyes and
personally
c. witnessed Flora Guinto give birth to Teofista Guinto, in their house, assisted by
“hilot”;
d. that the birth certificate of Teofista Guinto is void ab initio, as it was totally
a simulated birth, signature of informant forged, and it contained false

Teofista filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that “the petition states no cause of
action, it being an attack on the legitimacy of the respondent as the child of the spouses
Eugenio Babiera and HermogenaCariñosaBabiera; that plaintiff has no legal capacity
to file the instant petition pursuant to Article 171 of the Family Code; and finally that the
instant petition is barred by prescription in accordance with Article 170 of the Family
Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a certificate of live birth is sufficient to establish the legitimacy of a child
regardless of the fact that the same is obtained by fraud or that it contained some
irregularities

RULING:

No. The present case alleged and showed that Hermogena did not give birth
to petitioner. The prayer was not to declare that petitioner was an illegitimate child
of Hermogena, but to establish that the former was not the latter’s child at all. The
action did not impugn petitioner’s filiation to Spouses Eugenio and Hermogena
Babiera, because there was no blood relation to impugn in the first place.

While it is true that an official document such as petitioner’s Birth Certificate enjoys the

presumption of regularity, the specific facts attendant in the case, as well as the totality
of the evidence presented during trial, sufficiently negate such presumption. First, there
were already irregularities regarding the Birth Certificateitself. It was not signed by the
local civil registrar. More important, the Court of Appeals observed that the mother’s
signature therein was different from her signatures in other documents presented
during the trial.

The circumstances surrounding the birth of petitioner show that Hermogena was not
the former’s real mother. There was no evidence of Hermogena’s pregnancy, such as
medical records and doctor’s prescriptions, other than the Birth
Certificateitself. Moreover, at the time of her supposed birth, Hermogena was already 54
years old. Even if it were possible for her to have given birth at such a late age, it was
highly suspicious that she did so in her own home, when her advanced age
necessitated proper medical care normally available only in a hospital. The most
significant piece of evidence, however, was the deposition of Hermogena Babiera which
stated that she did not give birth to petitioner, and that the latter was neither hers nor
her husband Eugenio’s.

ALIMONY

Bermeo v. Bermeo, 2018 WL 6070768 (App. Div. 2018).  Opinion by Judge Firko.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for increased alimony based on
reasonable expectations that the husband would receive additional income in the
future?

Facts: the MSA required husband to pay $4,000 per month in alimony based on a gross
imputed income of $160,000.  Prior to the MSA, he was earning an average of
$467,100.  At the time of the MSA, husband started a new job earning $120,000 per
year.  The MSA provided for supplemental alimony based on a percentage of husband’s
enhanced income, up to $550,000. Wife claims husband is under-employed and she
had expectations of receiving supplemental alimony.  She further asserts she cannot
maintain the middle-class-life-style she previously maintained.  Husband asserts that
the parties agreed in the MSA that neither could maintain their prior lifestyle and that he
agreed to impute $160,000 per year when in fact, he only earned $120,000 per year.

Holding: The trial court was correct in not imputing income based on his earning history
when the history was considered in the MSA. The wife failed to show changed
circumstances.  There was no proof that husband was underemployed, that husband
concealed his income, or that an employment evaluation was necessary.  An
employment evaluation was not necessary because the parties waived the
determination of lifestyle in the MSA.

Facts:

 On October 10, 1986, about midnight, accused Heinrich Stefan Ritter brought Jessie
Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot inside his hotel room at MGM Hotel along Magsaysay Drive,
Olongapo City. These two children were chosen from among a bunch of street children.
 Once inside the hotel room accused told them to take a bath. Jessie
Ramirez, alias“Egan”, was the first to take a bath and when he came out Rosario went to the
bathroom to do the same.

 While Rosario was in the bathroom, accused told Ramirez to lay down on the bed, and so
did the accused. He then started masturbating the young boy and also guided the boy’s hand
for him to be masturbated.

 When Rosario came out of the bathroom, she was told to remove her clothes by accused
and to join him in bed. The accused then placed himself between the two children and
accused started fingering Rosario.

 Ramirez saw accused placing his penis against the vagina of Rosario. After what he saw,
Ramirez fell asleep.

 The following morning, the accused paid Ramirez P200.00 and Rosario P300.00. He then
left them in the hotel. After Ritter left, they went downstairs, and Rosario told Egan that the
American inserted something in her vagina. But they could not do anything anymore,
because the American had already left, and neither did they report the matter to the police.
 The following day, Ramirez claimed that he saw Rosario and she was complaining of
pain in her vagina and when Egan asked her, she said that the foreign object was not yet
removed.

 On May 14, 1987, Gaspar Alcantara, a defense witness, while garbage scavenging saw
Rosario being ogled by people because Rosario’s skirt was bloodied and she was
unconscious and foul smelling. He took pity on her condition and brought her to the
Olongapo City General Hospital in an unconscious condition, via jeepney.

 While Rosario was confined, three good Samaritans in the persons of Jessica Herrera, Fe
Israel, and Sr. Eva Palencia chanced upon Rosario and helped her.

 Rosario’s first ailment was loose bowel movement and vomiting, which was first
suspected as gastroenteritis, but which came out later as symptoms of peritonitis due to a
massive infection in the abdominal cavity.

 Subsequently, on May 17, 1987, it was found out that there was a foreign object lodged
in her vaginal canal and she had vaginal discharge tinged with blood and foul smelling odor.

 Barcinal, an OB-GYNE tried to extract the foreign object by means of a forceps, but
several attempts proved futile because the said object was deeply embedded in the vaginal
canal and was covered by tissues. Her abdomen was enlarged, tender and distended,
symptoms of peritonitis.

 The patient was feverish and incoherent when she was scheduled for an operation on May
19, 1987, after the first attempt for an operation on May 17 was aborted allegedly because the
consent of Dr. Reino Rosete, the hospital director was not obtained.

 The surgeon who operated on her was Dr. Rosete himself. He testified that Rosario had to
be operated even in that condition in order to save her life. Her condition was guarded. This
was corroborated by Dr. Leo Cruz, the anesthesiologist during Rosario’s operation.

 It was on the evening of May 19 at about 7:00 p.m. when Dr. Rosete opened her
abdomen. He found out that the fallopian tubes were congested with pus and so with the
 peritoneum, and the pelvic cavity, and patches of pus in the liver, although the gallbladder
and kidney appeared to have septicemia, poisoning of the blood. The peritonitis and
septicemia were traced to have been caused by infection by the foreign object which has been
lodged in the intra-vaginal canal of Rosario.

 The foreign object which is a portion of a sexual vibrator was extracted from the vagina
of Rosario while under anesthesia. Said object was coated with tissues, pus, and blood. Dr.
Rosete gave it to the assisting surgical nurse for safekeeping and gave instructions to release
it to the authorized person.

 This object was shown by the nurse to Dr. Leo Cruz. Dr. Rosete considered the operation
successful and the patient was alive when he left her under Dr. Cruz.

 Cruz stayed with said patient in the ward for about 30 minutes and thereafter he left. The
following day, Rosario got serious and it was Dr. Leo Cruz who pronounced her dead at 2:00
to 2:15 in the afternoon of May 20, 1987.

 Thereafter, a death certificate was prepared under the direction of Dr. Cruz which was
indicated therein that the cause of death was a cardio-respiratory arrest, secondary to
septicemia caused by the foreign object lodged in the intra-uteral vaginal canal.

 Sis Palence and others were able to trace Rosario’s grandmother, Mrs. Maria Burgos
Turla, and informed her that her granddaughter was already dead and lying in state at St.
Martin Funeral Parlor.

 Turla filed a case against Ritter. Ritter pleaded not guilty.

 Legaspi, the lawyer of Ritter, asked for a settlement of Php 20,000 to Mrs. Turla. She
agreed but Ritter only gave Php 15,000. He also asked to change the age of Rosario in
papers. However, the balance of Php 5,000 was not paid.
RTC’s ruling:

 Ritter is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Rape with homicide under Art.
335 of RPC.

 Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua.

 Indemnity: Php 60,000.00 and Php 10,000 attorney’s fees

Issues:

W/N Ritter was liable of rape with homicide

SC’s ruling:

The appealed judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant HEINRICH STEFAN

RITTER is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. The appellant is ordered to pay the

amount of P30,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of Rosario

Baluyot.

1. On Rosario’s age:

The prosecution didn’t satisfy the evidence for age. It is of doubtful value. Unfortunately,

in the instant case, nobody could corroborate the date on a more reliable document as

to Rosario’s

birth which could serve as sufficient proof that she was born on December 26, 1973.

Therefore, she was more than 12 years old at the time of the alleged incident on

October 10, 1986.

2. No rape was committed.

The evidence shows that Rosario submitted herself to the sexual advances of the

appellant. In fact, she appears to have consented to the action as she was paid

P300.00 the next morning while her companion, Jessie Ramirez was paid P200.00.

The environmental circumstances coupled with the testimonies and evidence presented

in court clearly give the impression that Rosario Baluyot, a poor street child, was a

prostitute in spite of her tender age.

Circumstances in life may have forced her to submit to sex at such a young age but the

circumstances do not come under the purview of force or intimidation needed to convict

for rape.

3. “Was the appellant responsible for the sexual vibrator left inside Rosario’s
vagina which led to her death?

Even if it were established that the appellant did insert something inside Rosario’s

vagina, the evidence is still not adequate to impute the death of Rosario to the

appellant’s alleged act.

If the device inserted by the appellant caused the pain, it is highly inconceivable how

she was able to endure the pain and discomfort until May 1987, seven (7) months after

the alleged incident. Evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible

witness but it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation

of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.

It was improbable, according to expert medical testimony, for a foreign object with active

properties to cause pain, discomfort, and serious infection only after seven months

inside a young girl’s vaginal canal.