Name: Dela Cruz, Mary Julieanne DR.

Section: BSLM-3B
ICL 304 | Case Digests
Case No: 01
Case Title: Festo R. Galang vs. Hon. Ramiro R. Geronimo and Nicasio
Ramos. G.R. No. 192793, 22 February, 2011
Principle: Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
Facts:
Galang was revealed to be the winner of the mayoralty race during the 2010
elections. Subsequently, Ramos -another mayoralty candidate, requested
COMELEC to conduct a manual reconciliation of the votes cast, which was
granted. After such, the total number of votes remained the same, only the
date was changed to reflect that manual reconciliation. Ramos filed the
proper pleading an two days later, Galang filed a Motion to Admit Answer-
which was denied for lack of merit. Galang filed an Omnibus Motion to: (1)
Restore Protestee’s Standing in Court; (2) Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order dated June 24, 2010; and (3) Suspend Proceedings Pending
Resolution of Falsification Case Before the Law Department of the COMELEC.
Unfortunately, said Motion was also denied. Hence, the instant case- a
petition for ceritoriari to the Court. Respondents pointed out that said
petition should be filed with COMELEC and not the Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition for ceritoriari in the instant case should be filed
with the COMELEC and not the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
Yes, the petition should be filed with COMELEC and not with the Supreme
Court. In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a
regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the
Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Section 8, Rule
12 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal Officials states that:

Sec. 8. Appeal. - An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the

COMELEC within five (5) days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal
with the court that rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse
counsel or on the adverse party who is not represented by counsel.
Case No: 02
Case Title: Ray Shu vs. Jaime Dee, Enriqueto Magpantay, Ramon
Miranda, Larry Macillan, and Edwin So. G.R. No. 182575, April 23,
2014
Principle:
Facts:
Ray Shu filed a complaint with the NBI charging Jaime Dee and the other
respondents for the falsification of two deeds of real estate mortgage
submitted to Metrobank. All 5 respondents were alleged by the petitioner as
employees of Metrobank, all of which are either signatories and/or witnesses
to the signing of the documents in question. The NBI conducted an
investigation where it was found that the signatures on the documents do
not match the sample signatures procured from the petitioner. The
respondents argued in their counter affidavits that they were denied their
right to due process of law by failing to be informed of the investigation as
the agency never required them nor gave them or Metrobank any form of
notice to submit a standard sample of signatures of the signatory characters
on the documents along with the petitioner for comparison. That such action
was unilateral on the petitioner’s part. And that the examination of the
documents that were conducted was without the original documents present.
Issue:
Whether or not due process was denied when the respondents were not
given notice during the investigation.
Held:
No, due process was not denied. The essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but its absolute absence and lack of opportunity to be heard.
Sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process exists when a
party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for reconsideration.
On the respondents’ allegation that they were denied due process during the
NBI investigation, we stress that the functions of this agency are merely
investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial
powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot even
determine probable cause. The NBI is an investigative agency whose findings
are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon its
own initiative or as public welfare may require in accordance with its
mandate. It also renders assistance when requested in the investigation or
detection of crimes in order to prosecute the persons responsible.
Case No: 03
Case Title: Celia S. VDA. De Herrera vs. Emelita Bernardo, Evelyn
Bernardo as guardian of Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo. G.R.
No. 170251, 01 June, 2011
Principle: Jurisdiction over Subject Matter
Facts:
Respondent heirs filed a complaint against Alfredo Herrera before COSLAP
for interference, disturbance, unlawful claim, harassment and trespassing
over a portion of parcel of land. They claimed that the said parcel of land
was originally owned by Crisanto Bernardo. Petitioners alleged that the
subject property was bought by Diosdado. Alfredo inherited said property.
COSLAP ruled that respondents have a rightful claim over the subject
property. Which was met with a motion for reconsideration and reopening of
the proceedings filed by Alfredo. COSLAP denied the motion and reiterated
their prior order. Celia S. Vda de Herrera filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA. It was later dismissed, affirming the resolution of COSLAP. The CA
ruled that COSLAP has executive jurisdiction over the present case and Celia
is already estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction because Alfredo
failed to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction before COSLAP and he actively
participated in the proceedings before the said body.
Issue:
Whether or not the COSLAP had jurisdiction over the subject matter, which
is to decide the right of ownership between the petitioner and the
respondents.
Held:
No, COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the subject matter in this case. COSLAP
was created by virtue of E.O. No. 561 as an administrative body created as a
means of providing a means of settling land problems among small settlers
and landowners to avoid social unrest, towards common benefit to resolve
social tension and cases that are explosive in nature an enumeration of
which is stated in said provision. The cause of action in this case pertains to
claim of rightful ownership to the subject property, which is an action
involving the possession of real property- which is not enumerated as part of
the jurisdiction of COSLAP. The jurisdiction of such is vested with the
Regional and/or Municipal Trial Courts depending on the assessed value of
the subject property.
Case No: 04
Case Title: Aurora B. Go vs. Elmer Sunbanun, Georgie S. Tan, Doris
Sunbanun and Richard Sunbanun. G.R. No. 168240, 09 February,
2011
Principle: Formal Requisites of Petition
Facts:
Respondents, all under the surname Sunbanun, filed a suit for damages
against Aurora, her husband and their Employment Agency, claiming that
the spouses occupied the ground floor portion of their house under a one
year lease contract and had used the ground floor as their office building. All
of these were denied by Aurora in her filed answer. The RTC found Aurora
with sole liability, thus her motions for reconsideration was denied. Due to
confusion with office mailing addresses with her legal counsel, her deposition
was failed to be submitted. This matter was raised in the opposition to the
respondents, which was found meritorious by the court. Still, her motion for
reconsideration and motion for time extension was denied. This was
appealed to the CA, petitioner contending that the RTC had unfairly denied
her motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal on account that
the appeal failed to explain the reason why personal service was not
resorted to, as well as the lack of signatures from the petitioner party, aside
from Aurora, and the submission of a certified true copy of the judgement
made to be appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not the formal deficiencies in the petition before the CA may be
relaxed in the interest of justice.

Held:
Yes, the formal deficiencies may be relaxed. While they are involved in the
case, their signatures are not necessary unless they are explicitly stated as
part of the petitioner party in the appeal. In this case, it was only Aurora’s
name and signature as she was the only ‘person aggrieved’ formally stated
in the document. Her signature counts enough to grant said appeal.
Furthermore, the ‘fresh period rule’ –a period of 15 days to perfect and
submit an appeal after receipt of denial of motion for reconsideration –is
applied to her benefit. Her appeal was perfected and filed within the time
frame as stated in the rule, hence her petition is granted.
Case No: 05
Case Title: Swagman Hotels and Travel Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals
and Neal B. Christian. G.R. No. 161135, 08 April, 2005.
Principle: Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Courts
Facts:
This is a case to settle a loan dispute between Swagman Hotels from Neal
B. Christian. During the course of the trial, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City rendered a decision declaring the promissory notes as already due and
demandable and that the interest on the loans may be reduced. This is in
lieu of the fact that Neal intends to terminate the loan, demanding that it be
paid back, along with unpaid interests. This is subsequent to a complaint
Neal filed for sum of money and damages after Swagman suffered business
reverses. Swagman answered the complaints, stating that it is dismissible
for lack of cause of action.

Issue:
Whether or not the decision of a lower court is valid when there is no cause
of action for a complaint.

Held:
No, without cause of action, a complaint is rendered invalid. While Section 5
of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides a clear exemption to
the rule, the facts state that the cause of action –in this case a clear
violation of their agreement through the promissory notes- has not yet
existed. Hence, the trial court should have dismissed the complaint.