Michael Ortega Ligalig

Category: Case Digest

  • Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. and Mansueto J. Honrada v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Second Division, et al.

    Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. and Mansueto J. Honrada v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Second Division, et al.

    Case Title: Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. and Mansueto J. Honrada v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Second Division, et al.

    G.R. No. 108251, January 31, 1996

    Facts:

    • Teofilo Gelacio filed a complaint against petitioners Paredes and Honrada for falsification of public documents.
    • The complaint alleged that Honrada, in conspiracy with Paredes and Atty. Sansaet, falsely certified that an arraignment was held in Criminal Case No. 1393 when no such arraignment actually took place.
    • After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman filed three informations for falsification against petitioners with the Sandiganbayan.
    • Petitioners moved to quash the informations and for reinvestigation, but these were denied.
    • Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the trial of the criminal cases.

    Issues:

    1. Whether petitioners’ right to due process was violated during the preliminary investigation
    2. Whether the filing of the cases constitutes forum shopping
    3. Whether the cases were filed merely for political harassment and without probable cause

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

    1. There was no violation of due process. The fact that a different investigator made the resolution recommending prosecution does not violate due process, as long as the decision was based on the evidence on record. The investigators were not shown to be biased against petitioners.
    2. There is no forum shopping. Although several cases arose from the same incident (Paredes’ free patent application), they involve different facts, circumstances and causes of action. The dismissal of the administrative case does not bar the criminal prosecution.
    3. The claim of political harassment does not justify prohibition of prosecution if there is evidence to support the charges. A preliminary investigation was conducted where petitioners were heard. The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion unless clearly abused. Petitioners failed to show the prosecutors acted in bad faith or lent themselves to a scheme of persecution.

    The petition was dismissed as the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in finding probable cause to file the criminal cases.

  • Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 107382, January 31, 1996)

    Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 107382, January 31, 1996)

    Case Title: Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, Province of Tarlac and Philippine National Bank

    Facts:

    • The Province of Tarlac maintained a current account with Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tarlac Branch.
    • Checks issued by the Province for Concepcion Emergency Hospital were drawn to the order of “Concepcion Emergency Hospital” or “The Chief, Concepcion Emergency Hospital”.
    • In 1981, it was discovered that 30 checks amounting to P203,300 were encashed by Fausto Pangilinan, a retired hospital employee, with Associated Bank as the collecting bank.
    • Pangilinan had forged the signature of Dr. Adena Canlas, the hospital chief, to negotiate the checks.
    • The Province of Tarlac sued PNB, which impleaded Associated Bank.

    Issue: Who bears the loss for the checks with forged endorsements – the drawer (Province of Tarlac), the drawee bank (PNB), or the collecting bank (Associated Bank)?

    Ruling:

    1. The loss should be shared between the Province of Tarlac (50%) and Associated Bank (50%).
    2. The Province of Tarlac was negligent in:
    • Releasing checks to an unauthorized person (Pangilinan)
    • Allowing a retired employee to receive checks for 3 years
    • Not ascertaining why two people were collecting checks
    1. Associated Bank was liable as the collecting bank for:
    • Not verifying the genuineness of prior endorsements
    • Breaching its warranty as endorser of the checks
    1. PNB as drawee bank can seek reimbursement from Associated Bank, but is liable to the Province for 50% of the amount.
    2. The 24-hour return rule under CB Circular 580 does not preclude PNB from seeking reimbursement, as it gave prompt notice to Associated Bank.
    3. Legal interest of 6% per annum is imposed from the date of extrajudicial demand.

    The Court modified the lower court’s decision, ordering PNB to pay 50% of P203,300 to the Province, and Associated Bank to pay 50% of P203,300 to PNB, both with 6% interest from March 20, 1981.

  • Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Globert J. Justalero

    Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Globert J. Justalero

    Case Title: Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Globert J. Justalero

    Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines

    Date: April 3, 2024

    Facts:

    • Judge Globert J. Justalero was preventively suspended on January 20, 2016 as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 32, Iloilo City pending investigation of administrative charges against him.
    • On January 18, 2023, the Supreme Court found Judge Justalero guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross misconduct, imposing a penalty of one-year suspension without pay.
    • Judge Justalero filed letters seeking clarification on the computation of his suspension period and requesting back wages for the time he was preventively suspended.

    Issues:

    1. Whether the one-year suspension penalty should be deemed served given Judge Justalero’s prolonged preventive suspension
    2. Whether Judge Justalero is entitled to back salaries and benefits for the period of preventive suspension

    Ruling:

    1. The one-year suspension penalty is deemed served in view of Judge Justalero’s continued suspension from September 30, 2016 until his reinstatement.
    2. Judge Justalero is entitled to back salaries, allowances and other economic benefits from September 30, 2017 up to his reinstatement. The one-year period from September 30, 2016 to September 30, 2017 is deducted to account for the one-year suspension penalty.

    Ratio:

    • Under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, preventive suspension should not exceed 90 days unless extended by the Supreme Court for compelling reasons.
    • Delay in case resolution not attributable to the respondent judge should not extend the preventive suspension period.
    • Equity considerations warrant partial grant of back salaries/benefits when preventive suspension exceeds the imposed penalty period.

    The Court also laid down guidelines on awarding back salaries and benefits for respondents with pending administrative cases, based on the outcome and circumstances of each case.

  • Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court v. Johnny R. Llemos A.M. No. SC-23-001 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 22-008-SC)

    Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court v. Johnny R. Llemos A.M. No. SC-23-001 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 22-008-SC)

    Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court v. Johnny R. Llemos
    A.M. No. SC-23-001 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 22-008-SC)
    April 30, 2024

    Facts:

    • Johnny R. Llemos, a Painter I in the Maintenance Division of the Supreme Court, tested positive for methamphetamine use in a random drug test conducted on July 11, 2022.
    • The positive result was confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation.
    • Llemos admitted to using illegal drugs in his comment, but claimed it was not habitual. He apologized and asked for leniency for the sake of his work and children.

    Issue:
    Whether Llemos is guilty of gross misconduct and use of illegal drugs, and what the appropriate penalty should be.

    Ruling:

    1. The Court found Llemos guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and use of illegal drugs or substances.
    2. While the Judicial Integrity Board recommended dismissal from service, the Court modified the penalty to suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one year.
    3. The Court considered the following mitigating factors:
    • Llemos readily admitted his liability
    • He displayed earnest remorse
    • He implored leniency for the sake of his children’s education
    1. The Court noted this approach aligns with the view that drug abuse is a complex health disorder best addressed through rehabilitation rather than retribution.
    2. The Court sternly warned Llemos that a repetition of a similar violation will result in dismissal from service.
    3. The Supreme Court Medical and Dental Services was directed to refer Llemos to a suitable drug rehabilitation facility at his own expense.

    The decision is immediately executory.

  • Felimon C. Torres v. Board of Trustees, Government Service Insurance System et al.

    Felimon C. Torres v. Board of Trustees, Government Service Insurance System et al.

    Facts:

    • In 1979, Second Lieutenant Dominador dela Cena Torres, Jr. entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale (DCS) with ARB Construction Co., Inc. for a low-cost housing unit, financed by a GSIS housing loan payable through salary deductions.
    • Less than a year later, on September 2, 1980, Dominador died in a helicopter crash while on a ferry mission. He died single and without issue, survived by his parents.
    • GSIS sent notices regarding unpaid amortizations and potential foreclosure to Dominador’s last address, unaware of his death.
    • Dominador’s brother, petitioner Felimon Torres, claimed the housing loan should be deemed paid through Sales Redemption Insurance (SRI). GSIS denied this, stating Dominador never underwent required medical exams or paid SRI premiums.
    • In 2005, GSIS issued a Notice of Cancellation of the DCS. Felimon filed a petition with the GSIS Board seeking consolidation of title in his name.
    • The GSIS Board, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all found the housing loan was not covered by SRI due to lack of medical exams and premium payments.

    Issue:
    Whether Dominador’s DCS was covered by SRI and whether cancellation of the DCS was warranted.

    Ruling:

    1. The Supreme Court affirmed that Dominador’s DCS was not covered by SRI, as he did not undergo required medical exams or pay premiums.
    2. However, the Court ruled that cancellation of the DCS was unwarranted. It directed that Felimon, as Dominador’s sole heir, be allowed to apply for restructuring of the outstanding loan under GSIS Board Resolution No. 48 and Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 232-13 on Housing Loan Remedial and Restructuring Program.
    3. The Court emphasized the principles of good faith in contracts and the GSIS mandate to provide social security benefits. It noted both parties demonstrated good faith – GSIS in its patience before cancellation and offering remedial options, and Felimon in his willingness to pay the outstanding balance.
    4. The case was remanded to the GSIS Board to determine appropriate loan restructuring for Felimon to fully pay the outstanding obligations on Dominador’s housing loan account.
  • Miguel Kim v. Slimmers World International, Albert Cuesta, and Dinah Quinto (G.R. No. 206306 & G.R. No. 206321)

    Miguel Kim v. Slimmers World International, Albert Cuesta, and Dinah Quinto (G.R. No. 206306 & G.R. No. 206321)

    Facts:

    • Adelaida Kim, wife of Miguel Kim, was a 59-year-old member of Slimmers World fitness center.
    • In June 2000, Adelaida availed of a 12-visit personal training program at Slimmers World.
    • On July 25, 2000, during her 12th and last session, Adelaida complained of a headache and vomited after her workout.
    • The gym staff took her blood pressure, which was high, and brought her to a nearby hospital.
    • Three days later, on July 28, 2000, Adelaida died due to cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension.
    • Miguel Kim filed a complaint for damages against Slimmers World, trainer Albert Cuesta, and managing director Dinah Quinto, alleging their negligence caused his wife’s death.

    Issues:

    1. Whether Slimmers World et al. are liable for contractual negligence
    2. Whether Slimmers World et al. are liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court ruled that Slimmers World et al. cannot be held liable for either contractual negligence or quasi-delict:

    1. On contractual negligence:
    • Miguel failed to prove that Slimmers World et al. breached any contractual obligation.
    • The contract did not require the fitness center to take Adelaida’s blood pressure before every workout or have a doctor on site at all times.
    • Adelaida had declared she was not hypertensive when she availed of the program.
    1. On quasi-delict:
    • Miguel failed to establish the elements of quasi-delict, particularly:
      a) The act or omission constituting negligence
      b) The causal connection between the act and the damage sustained (proximate cause)
    • The fitness center took reasonable precautions given the circumstances.
    • There was insufficient evidence proving that Adelaida’s workout directly caused her death.

    The Court emphasized that while gyms have a duty of care, they are not mandated to guarantee safety from all risks. Miguel failed to discharge his burden of proof in establishing negligence and proximate causation.

    The Court therefore granted the petition of Slimmers World et al., reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and dismissed Miguel Kim’s complaint for damages.

  • San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Spouses Ramon and Ma. Nelia Fabie, and Fresh Link, Inc.

    San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Spouses Ramon and Ma. Nelia Fabie, and Fresh Link, Inc.

    Case Title:

    G.R. No.: 234849

    Date: June 30, 2024

    Ponente: Justice Hernando

    Facts:

    • Fresh Link, Inc., owned by Spouses Ramon and Nelia Fabie, entered into a Complementary Distributorship Agreement with San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) in 1992, which was renewed yearly.
    • In April 1999, the agreement was renewed again to expire on March 31, 2000.
    • On June 4, 1999, SMFI ceased delivery of products on credit to Fresh Link.
    • Fresh Link filed a complaint against SMFI for breach of contract and damages, alleging SMFI unilaterally terminated the agreement.
    • SMFI claimed Fresh Link had unpaid accounts and its letter of credit had expired.
    • The RTC ruled in favor of Fresh Link and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications.

    Issues:

    1. Whether SMFI is entitled to its counterclaims
    2. Whether SMFI unilaterally terminated the agreement with Fresh Link
    3. Whether respondents are entitled to damages

    Ruling:

    1. SMFI is not entitled to its counterclaims. The documents submitted were mere photocopies, inadmissible under the best evidence rule.
    2. Respondents failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that SMFI unilaterally terminated the agreement. Evidence showed SMFI only denied credit purchases, not terminated the agreement entirely.
    3. Respondents are not entitled to damages. They failed to sufficiently prove SMFI’s alleged breaches of contract beyond Nelia Fabie’s testimony and complaint letters.

    The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and dismissed Fresh Link’s complaint for lack of merit.

    Dispositive Portion:
    The Petition is GRANTED. The May 18, 2017 Decision and October 18, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint filed by respondents is DISMISSED for lack of merit.