Gios-Samar Inc. vs DoTC G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019 FACTS The Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) posted an invitation for competitive bidding for the development, operations, and maintenance of several airports (Bacolod-Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol [Panglao], and Puerto Princesa) to improve services. GIOS-SAMAR, Inc., a non-governmental organization, filed a petition for prohibition against the bidding, citing constitutional violations. Despite DOTC and CAAP's counterarguments regarding prematurity and lack of standing, GIOS-SAMAR argued the issue's transcendental importance and potential harm to public welfare. GIOS-SAMAR filed a direct petition for prohibition in the Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts. The respondents raised procedural objections, including prematurity, lack of legal standing, and improper bypassing of the hierarchical court system. Was direct recourse to t...

Billones vs CIR  G.R. No. L-17566, July 30, 1995  FACTS Petitioners were allegedly employees of Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, required to work 18 hours daily without overtime compensation. In June 1954, petitioners, along with crew members, formed the Universal Marine Labor Union and filed a claim for accrued overtime compensation for the period from 1948 to 1954 with the Wage Administration Service (WAS). The claim was dropped after the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Contract with the company, which was considered a full settlement of their claims. Later, petitioners, claiming they had not authorized the dismissal of their claim, filed new complaints in 1958 for overtime compensation and other benefits for the period from 1948 to 1956. Respondent Luzon Stevedoring moved to dismiss these cases, arguing that the claims were barred by prior judgment, released, and subject to prescription as per Republic Act No. 1993, which imposed a three-year limitation on such c...

People vs. Moner  G.R. No. 202206, March 5 2018 FACTS Police operatives from the Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAIDSOTF) arrested Joel Taudil for possession of illegal drugs. Taudil disclosed that Teng Moner was his source. A buy-bust operation was organized, with Police Officer 2 (PO2) Panopio posing as a buyer who wanted to purchase 5 grams of shabu for P8,000 from Moner. Moner handed over a plastic sachet containing shabu to PO2 Panopio in exchange for the marked and boodle money. Upon receiving the money, Moner was arrested after resisting and attempting to escape. Other individuals were found repackaging shabu in Moner's house and were also arrested. The confiscated items were taken to the police station, marked, and inventoried in the presence of the accused and other operatives. The specimens were tested and confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Whether the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of cust...

Villarama vs. Guno  G.R. No. 197514, August 06, 2018 FACTS The case involves the sale of a property from spouses Marcial and Rita Reyes (Sps. Reyes) to spouses Crisantomas and Carmelita Yadao Guno (Sps. Guno). The Sps. Reyes executed a deed of absolute sale and later created a Trust Agreement with Prudential Bank (Prudential), naming their children as beneficiaries and eventually appointing Ramon Villarama as an irrevocable beneficiary. Sps. Guno later mortgaged the property to Prudential, leading to foreclosure due to non-payment. Prudential acquired the property at a public auction, resulting in TCT No. 355218 being issued in its name, which led to the eviction of Sps. Guno. Sps. Guno filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale against Prudential, which was upheld by the RTC and later affirmed by the Supreme Court. On July 17, 1997, Villarama filed a complaint against Sps. Guno for rescission of the promissory notes, deed of sale, and cancellation of title. The RTC...

Domingo vs. Scheer  G.R. No. 154745, January 29 2004 FACTS Herbert Markus Emil Scheer, a German national, was granted permanent resident status in the Philippines on July 18, 1986. He established a life there, marrying a Filipina and having children. The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) received information from the German Embassy regarding Scheer's police records and financial liabilities in Germany, including a warrant for his arrest for insurance fraud. On September 27, 1997, the BOI issued a Summary Deportation Order against Scheer, leading to his inclusion in the Bureau's blacklist. Scheer filed a motion for reconsideration against the deportation order, arguing violations of due process and disputing the evidence used against him. The BOI failed to resolve his motion for over six years. In the meantime, Scheer received a temporary passport from the German Embassy after a criminal case against him in Germany was dismissed. In June 2002, Scheer was arrested by immigration age...

Tumagan vs. Kairuz  G.R. No. 198124, September 12 2018 FACTS Respondent Mariam K. Kairuz filed an ejectment case against petitioners John Cary Tumagan, Alam Halil, and Bot Padilla, alleging that they forcibly took possession of a 5.2-hectare property in Tadiangan, Tuba, Benguet, on May 28, 2007. She claimed they conspired to gain entry with the help of armed men and padlocked the gates to the property, which excluded her from it. Petitioners, acting on behalf of Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), argued that they could not be liable for forcible entry as Mariam was not the sole possessor. They explained that Mariam’s husband, Laurence, and his family co-owned the property, which had been sold to BIRI following a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Mariam, as Laurence’s successor, was aware of BIRI’s operations and even served on its Board of Directors. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed Mariam's complaint for failing to implead BIRI, an indispensable party. This deci...

Lotte Phil. Co. vs. Dela Cruz  G.R. No. 166302, July 28 2005 FACTS Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. (Lotte) contracted 7J Maintenance and Janitorial Services (7J) for manpower, including petitioners who worked as repackers and sealers. After Lotte terminated its contract with 7J, the workers were no longer called back to work. They then filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, backwages, and benefits. Labor Arbiter ruled that 7J was the employer and ordered 7J to reinstate the workers with backwages. The NLRC affirmed, holding 7J solely liable. Petitioners contested the decision, arguing that Lotte was their true employer since 7J was a mere labor-only contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s decision, holding that Lotte was the real employer. Lotte filed a petition for review, arguing that 7J was an indispensable party that had not been impleaded. Whether the petition should have been dismissed for failing to implead 7J as an indispensable party. RULIN...

DANFOSS Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp.  G.R. No. 143788, September 9 2005  FACTS Continental Cement Corporation (CCC) purchased two frequency converters from Mechatronics Instruments and Controls, Inc. (MINCI), who relayed the order to Danfoss, Inc. The delivery was scheduled within 8 to 10 weeks from the opening of a letter of credit on September 9, 1997. Before the delivery period expired, CCC cancelled the order on November 13, 1997, citing anticipated delays. CCC then filed a complaint for damages, alleging that the delay caused losses. Danfoss filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that no breach had occurred since CCC cancelled the order before the delivery deadline. Whether the complaint for damages should be dismissed for failing to state a cause of action and for being premature. RULING Yes. the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for being premature. The Supreme Court ruled that a cause of act...

Riviera Golf Club v. CCA  G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015 FACTS Riviera Golf Club entered into a Management Agreement with CCA Holdings to manage and operate the golf club. Riviera Golf defaulted on payments and terminated the agreement prematurely. CCA Holdings filed two separate lawsuits against Riviera Golf: Civil Case 01-611 for unpaid fees and reimbursement claims, Civil Case 03-399 for damages due to premature termination of the agreement. Riviera Golf argued that the second case was barred by res judicata and splitting a single cause of action. Whether the second complaint was barred by res judicata and splitting a single cause of action. RULING Yes. Res judicata requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions (a) identity of par...

De Guzman vs CA  G.R. Nos. 92029-30, December 20 1990 FACTS The petitioner and respondent had a longstanding friendship involving financial transactions. The petitioner issued several checks to the respondent, which were allegedly settled or condoned. Years later, the respondent demanded payment for the checks, claiming the amounts were not settled. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent's demand was baseless and seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal. Whether the petitioner stated a sufficient cause of action in the complaint. RULING Yes. The cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate — person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act o...

Padlan vs. Dinglasan  G.R. No. 180321, March 20 2013 FACTS Elenita Dinglasan (Elenita) was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-105602. While on board a jeepney, Elenita's mother, Lilia Baluyot (Lilia), had a conversation with one Maura Passion (Maura) regarding the sale of said property. Believing that Maura was a real estate agent, Lilia borrowed the owner's copy of the TCT from Elenita and gave it to Maura. Maura then subdivided the property into several lots under the name of Elenita and her husband Felicisimo. Through a falsified deed of sale bearing forged signature of Elenita and Felicisimo, Maura was able to sell the lots to different buyers, one of whom was Lorna Ong (Lorna). Sometime in August 1990, Lorna sold the lot to Editha Padlan for P4,000. After learning what happened, Elenita demanded Padlan to surrender possession of said land, but the latter refused. Respondents files a case before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan and summons to petitio...

Lapu-Lapu vs. GMC  G.R. No. 141407, September 9, 2002 FACTS LLDHC (Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing Corporation) defaulted on a loan from GSIS (Government Service Insurance System) secured by a mortgage on the land. GSIS foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the land through a public auction. LLDHC filed a case in the Manila RTC (Regional Trial Court) to annul the foreclosure. GSIS sold the land to GMC (Group Management Corporation) through a conditional sale agreement. GMC filed a case in the Lapu-Lapu City RTC for specific performance against GSIS, demanding a final deed of sale for the land. The Manila RTC ruled in favor of LLDHC, ordering the reversal of the foreclosure and the return of the land to LLDHC. The Lapu-Lapu City RTC then ruled in favor of GMC, ordering GSIS to execute a final deed of sale for the land to GMC . Whether the final and fully implemented decision of the Manila RTC could be declared and rendered ineffectual and nugatory by the judgment of the Lap...

Villamor vs. Salas  G.R. No. 101041, November 13, 1991 FACTS Judge Villamor dismissed five criminal cases filed by Carlos against Gloria Naval. He then issued an order of direct contempt against Carlos and his lawyer for supposedly using derogatory language. The Supreme Court annulled the contempt order. Carlos and his lawyer subsequently filed separate lawsuits against Judge Villamor for damages, claiming he knowingly rendered an unjust order of contempt. Judge Villamor filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits, arguing that other courts lacked jurisdiction. Whether Judges Aleonar and Salas can take cognizance of the lawsuits for damages filed against Judge Villamor for allegedly issuing an unjust order of contempt. RULING NO. To allow respondent Judges Aleonar and Salas to proceed with the trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner, a co-equal judge of a co-equal court, would in effect permit a court to renew and interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court ov...

Dacudao vs Gonzales G.R. No. 188056,  January 8, 2013 FACTS Petitioners were among the victims of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by the Legacy Group of Companies. They filed criminal complaints against the perpetrators with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City. The Secretary of Justice issued Department Order No. 182, consolidating all cases against the Legacy Group in Manila for investigation by a special panel. Petitioners challenged the order, arguing that it violated their rights to due process, equal protection, and speedy disposition of cases. Did petitioners properly bring their petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus directly to the Court RULING No. The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious consequences. The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious ...