ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6121 - TRINIDAD H. CAMARA, ET AL. v. ATTY. OSCAR AMONDY REYES

  • A.C. No. 7199 Formerly CBD 04-1386 - Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr.

  • A.C. No. 7815 - Dolores C. Belleza v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa

  • A.C. No. 8243 - Rolando B. Pacana, Jr. v. Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez

  • A.C. No. 8252 - Natividad Uy v. Atty. Braulio RG Tansisin

  • A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan De Oro City

  • A.M. No. 03-7-170-MCTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit in Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Jiminez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental/ Judge Pricilla Hernandez

  • A.M. No. 08-3-73-MeTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City

  • A.M. No. 08-4-4-SC - Re: Request of the Police Director General Avelino I. Razon for authority to delegate the endorsement of application for search warrant

  • A.M. No. 2008-24-SC - Re: Fighting incident between two(2) SC shutle bus drivers, namely, Messrs. Edilbert L. Idulsa and Ross C. Romero

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1651 - Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal v. Judge Wenceslao B. Vanilla, MTCC, Br. 2, Tacloban City

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1225-MTJ - Lanie Cervantes v. Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan, and Clerk of Court III Carmencita P. Baloco, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1677 & A.M. No. P-07-2317 - Liberty M. Toledo v. Liza Perez, Court Stenographer III, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila

  • A.M. No. P-06-2212 - Geronimo Francisco v. Sebastian Bolivar, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2217 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2375-P - Concerned Employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan v. Larizza Paguio-Bacani, Branch COC II, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2219 Formerly A.M. No. 06-7-392-RTC - Office of the Court Administrator v. Officer-in-charge and Legal Researcher Nilda Cinco, RTC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar

  • A.M. No. P-06-2245 Formerly OCA IPI NO. 06-2373-P and A.M. NO. MTJ-09-1741 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-1853-MTJ : July 31, 2009 - Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr. v. Concepcion Z. Ching, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2578 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2924-P - Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayona

  • A.M. No. P-09-2644 Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2787-P - Edgardo A. Quilo v. Rogelio G. Jundarino, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trail Court, Branch 19, Manila

  • A.M. No. P-08-2132 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2549-RTJ - Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay v. Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2158 Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ - Alfredo Favor v. Judge Cesar O. Untalan, RTC, Branch 149, Makati City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175 - Venancio Inonog v. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 135, Makati City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2346-RTJ - Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Presiding Judge Pornillos, RTC Br. 10, Malolos City.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2186 Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 03-1893-RTJ and A.M. No. RTJ-09-2187 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1993-RTJ - Atty. Nelson T. Antolin, et al. v. Judge Alex L. Quiroz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 141888 - Melba Rose R. Sasot v. Amado Yuson, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147957 - Privatization Management Office v. Legaspi Towers 300, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 148600 - Atty. Emmanuel Pontejos v. Hon. Aniano Desierto and Restituto Aquino

  • G.R. No. 149763 - Eduardo J. Mari o, Jr. et al. v. Gil Y. Gamilla, et al.

  • G.R. No. 150228 - Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club

  • G.R. No. 151424 - Eagle Realty Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 151973 - National Power Corporation v. Sps. Lorenzo L. Laohoo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 152263 - Arthur Zarate v. Regional Trial Court, Br. Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

  • G.R. No. 152496 - Sps. German Anunciacion, et al. v. Perpetua M. Bocanegra, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155491 - Smart Communications, Inc., v. The City of Davao, represented by its Mayor Hon. Rodrigo Duterte and the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Davao City

  • G.R. No. 156946 - Secretary of Finance v. Oro Maura Shipping Lines

  • G.R. No. 157607 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rowena O. Paden

  • G.R. No. 159131 - Heirs of Toribio Waga, represented by Merba A. Waga v. Isabelo Sacabin

  • G.R. No. 159358 - Eureka Personnel and Management Corp., and Nari K. Gidwani v. The Hon. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159624 - Cebu Mactan Members Center, Inc. v. Masahiro Tsukahara

  • G.R. NOS. 160243-52 - Romeo D. Lonzanida v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 160265 - Nely T. Co. v. People of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160380 - Sps. Eduardo & Leticia Monta o v. Rosalina Francisco, et al

  • G.R. No. 160772 - Hilario P. Soriano v. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161051 - Compania General de Tabacos De Filipinas and La Flor De La Isabela, inc. v. Hon. Virgilio A. Sevandal, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161062 - Republic of the Philippines v. Ferventino U, Tango

  • G.R. No. 161238 - Heirs of Jose G. Santiago, namely: Julia G. Santiago, et al. v. Aurea G. Santiago, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161748 - Spouses Francisco and Betty Wong and Spouses Joaquin and Lolita Wong v. City of Iloilo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162074 - Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation v. Spouses Tito Acu a, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162540 - Gemma T. Jacinto v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 162721 - Petronila Maylem v. Carmelita Ellano and Antonia Morciento

  • G.R. No. 162738 - Sps. Elizabeth S. Tagle Ernesto R. Tagle v. Hon. Court of Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and Shriff Carol Bulacan

  • G.R. No. 162836 - Cerefina Argallon-Jocson and Rodolfo Tuising v. Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation and/or Marcelo Steel Corporation

  • G.R. No. 164244 - National Housing Authority v. Reynaldo Magat

  • G.R. No. 164315 - Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v. Rene R. Relos

  • G.R. No. 164560 - Ana De Guia San Pedro, et al. v. Hon. Fatima G. Asdala (etc.), et al.

  • G.R. No. 164800 - Republic of the Philippines v. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 164817 - Digna A. Najera v. Eduardo J. Najera

  • G.R. No. 164968 - Gloria Ocampo, et al. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165448 - Ernesto Aquino v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165568 - Government Service Insurance System v. Abraham Lopez

  • G.R. No. 165678 - Rosario Panuncio v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165907 - Spouses Dominador R. Narvaez and Lilia W. Narvaez v. Spouses Rose Ogas Alciso and Antonio Alciso

  • G.R. No. 166198 - Marcelino A. Magdadaro v. Philippine National Bank

  • G.R. No. 166553 - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the National Power Corporation v. Sps. Ruperto and Sonia S. Libuano, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166640 - Herminio Mariano, Jr. v. Ildefonso C. Callejas and Edgar De Borja

  • G.R. No. 166705 - Mantle Trading Services, Incorporated and/or Bobby Del Rosario v. National Labor Relations Commission and Pablo S. Madriaga

  • G.R. No. 166734 - Mandy Commodities Co., Inc. v. The International Commercial Bank of China

  • G.R. No. 166988 - Heirs of Emiliano San Pedro, etc. v. Pablito Garcia and Jose Calderon

  • G.R. No. 167232 - D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction Incorporated v. Ricaredo Panes, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167546 - Sonny Romero y Dominguez v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 167809 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Josefina R. Dumlao, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168406 - Club Filipino, Inc. and Atty. Roberto F. De Leon v. Benjamin Bautista, et al.

  • G.R. No. 169519 - Irenorio B. Balaba v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 169700 - In the Matter of the Allowance of the Will of Moises F. Banayad Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 169878 - People of the Philippines v. Jesus Obero

  • G.R. No. 170014 - Renita Del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170472 - People of the Philippines v. Jojo Musa y Santos, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 170615-16 - The Repuclic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and Romeo Querubin.

  • G.R. No. 171275 - Victor Meteoro, et al. v. Creative Creatures, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171386 - Gloria R. Motos and Martin Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171586 - National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon and Municipality of Pabgilao

  • G.R. No. 171655 - People of the Philippines v. Pablo L. Estacio, Jr. and Maritess Ang

  • G.R. No. 171842 - Gloria S. Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171968 - XYST Corporation v. DMC Urban Properties Development, Inc., Fe Aurora C. Castro (Intervenor)

  • G.R. No. 172174 - Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO), represented by Chairman of the Board Engr. L. Chavez v. Marilyn A. Pasawa.

  • G.R. No. 172212 - Rafael Rondina v. Court of Appeals formet special 19th Division, unicraft Industries International Corp., Inc. Robert Dino, Cristina Dino, Michael Lloyd Dino, Allan Dino and Mylene June Dino.

  • G.R. No. 172342 - LWV Construction Corporation v. Marcelo B. Dupo

  • G.R. No. 172574 - Noli Lim v. Angelito Delos Santos, etc., Denia R. Adoyo, et al., (Intervenors) Gloria Murillo, et al., (Protestants)

  • G.R. No. 172640 - Victoriano Dela Pe a, et al. v. Spouses Vicente Alonzo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172796 - Sps. Artemio and Esperanza Aduan v. Levi Chong

  • G.R. No. 173252 - Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation v. Joseph Chung, et al.

  • G.R. No. 173654-765 - People of the Philippines v. Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras

  • G.R. No. 174154 - Jesus Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sprots Complex, Incorporated and Matias B. Aznar III

  • G.R. No. 174238 - Anita Cheng v. Souses William and Tessie Sy

  • G.R. No. 174364 - Northwest Airlines v. Delfin S. Catapang

  • G.R. No. 174370 - People of the Philippines v. Willy Mardo Ganoy y Mamayabay

  • G.R. No. 174610 - Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc., et al. v. Sprint Transport Services, inc. etc.

  • G.R. No. 174803 - Marywin Albano-Sales v. Mayor Reynolan T. Sales and Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 174830 - Isabelita Vda. De Dayao and Heirs of Vicente Dayao v. Heirs of Gavino Robles, namely: Placida vda. De Robles, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174986, G.R. NO. 175071 and G.R. NO. 181415 - Armand O. Raquel-Santos, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175352 - Dante Liban, et al. v. Richard J. Gordon

  • G.R. No. 175551 - Republic of the Philippines represented by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Hon. Francisco G. Mendioal, etc.

  • G.R. No. 175677 and G.R. NO. 177133 - Spouses Azucena B. Corpuz and Renato S. Corpuz v. Citibank, N.A. et al.

  • G.R. No. 175910 - Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba v. Fe vda De Te, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Casta eda

  • G.R. No. 177007 - Sansio Philippines, Inc. v. Sps. Alicia Leodegario Mogol, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 177181 - Rabaja Ranch and Development Corporation v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System

  • G.R. No. 177430 and G.R. NO. 178935 - Rene M. Francisco v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 177594 - University of San Agustin, Inc. v. University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW

  • G.R. No. 177624 - Modesta Luna v. Juliana P. Luna, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177728 - Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz, et al., etc., v. Ronald Paul S. Gracia, etc.

  • G.R. No. 177766 - People of the Philippines v. Claro Jampas

  • G.R. No. 177768 - People of the Philippines v. Charmen Olivo y Along, Nelson Danda y Sambuto and Joey Zafra y Reyes

  • G.R. No. 177847 - Laurence M. Sison v. Eusebia Cariaga

  • G.R. No. 178058 - People of the Philippines v. Jessie Maliao y Masakit, Norberto Chiong y Discotido and Luciano Bohol y Gamana, Jessie Maliao y Masakit(Accused-Appellant)

  • G.R. No. 178205 - People of the Philippines v. Leo Quemeggen, Juanito De Luna

  • G.R. No. 178330 - Martin T. Sagarbarria v. Philippine Business Bank

  • G.R. No. 178490 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands

  • G.R. No. 178760 - Carmen B. Dy-Dumalasa v. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 178831-32, G.R. No. 179120, G.R. NOS. 179132-33 and G.R. NOS. 179240-41 - Limkaichong v. Comission on Election

  • G.R. No. 178976 - Abelardo P. Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation represented by Fernando Agustin

  • G.R. No. 179061 - Sheala P. Matrido v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 179154 - People of the Philippines v. Roger Perez and Danilo Perez

  • G.R. No. 179177 - Carlos N. Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179187 - People of the Philippines v. Renato Talusan y Panganiban

  • G.R. No. 179430 - Jamela Salic Maruhom v. Commssion on Elections and Mohammad Ali "Mericano" A. Abinal

  • G.R. No. 179271 and G.R. No. 179295 - BANAT v. Commission on Election

  • G.R. No. 179512 - Eagle Star Security Services, Inc. v. Bonifacio L. Mirando.

  • G.R. No. 179546 - Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. Alan M. Agito, Regolo S. Oca III, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179653 - United Muslim and Christian Urban Poor Association, Inc., etc. v. BRYC-V Development Corporation, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 179674 - Pyro Coppermining Corporation v. Mines Adjudication Board-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179807 - Ramy Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 179937 - The People of the Philippines v. Gerald Librea y Camitan

  • G.R. No. 180043 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airline, Inc. (PAL)

  • G.R. No. 180055 and G.R. No. 183055 - Franklin M. Drilon, et al. v. Hon. Jose de Venecia, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 180066 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 180458 - Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Spouses Juliano and Catalina Centeno

  • G.R. No. 180465 - Eric Dela Cruz and Paul M. Lacuata v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.

  • G.R. No. 180528 - Civil Service Commission v. Nelia O. Tahanlangit

  • G.R. No. 180568 - Lydia Montebon a.k.a. Jingle Montebon v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180675 - Virgilio Bote v. San Pedro Cineplex Properties Corporation

  • G.R. No. 181235 - Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc. v. John Tansipek

  • G.R. No. 181393 - Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. and Abelardo M. Gonzales v. Edna Margallo

  • G.R. No. 181478 - Eddie T. Panlilio v. Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda

  • G.R. No. 181531 - National Union of Workers in Hotels Restaurant and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182420 - People of the Philippines v. Elsie Barba

  • G.R .No. 182454 - People of the Philippines v. Felix Wasit

  • G.R. No. 182485 - Sps. Henry O and Pacita Cheng v. Sps. Jose Javier and Claudia Dailisan

  • G.R. No. 182567 - Guillermo M. Telmo v. Luciano M. Bustamante

  • G.R. No. 182687 - People of the Philippines v. Warlito Martinez

  • G.R. No. 182941 - Roberto Sierra y Caneda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 183105 - Erna Casals, et al. v. Tayud Golf and Country Club, et al..

  • G.R. No. 183819 - People of the Philippines v. Arsenio Cortez y Macalindong a.k.a. "Archie"

  • G.R. No. 184586 - Rafael Flauta, Jr., et al. v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184801 - Jonas Taguiam v. Commission on Election, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184948 - Cong. Glenn A. Chong, Mr. Charles Chong, and Mr. Romeo Arribe v. Hon. Philip L. Dela Cruz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185035 - Government Service Insurance System v. Salvador A. De Castro

  • G.R. No. 185063 - Sps. Lita De Leon, et al. v. Anita B. De Leon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185095 - Maria Susan L. Ra ola, et al. v. Spouses Fernando & Ma. Concepcion M. Ra ola

  • G.R. No. 185220 - Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Aries C. Caalam and Geraldine Esguerra

  • G.R. No. 185389 - People of the Philippines v. Benjie Resurrection

  • G.R. No. 185401 - Henry "June" Due as, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Angelito "Jett" P. Reyes

  • G.R. NO. 186007 and G.R. No. 186016 - Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Alex A. Centena

  • G.R. No. 187152 - People of the Philippines v. Teodulo Villanueva, Jr.

  • UDK-14071 - Martin Gibbs Fletcher v. The Director of Bureau of Corrections or his representative

  •  





     
     

    G.R. NOS. 170615-16 - The Repuclic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and Romeo Querubin.

      G.R. NOS. 170615-16 - The Repuclic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and Romeo Querubin.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NOS. 170615-16 : July 9, 2009]

    THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, Petitioner, v. RUFINO V. MIJARES, ROBERTO G. FERRERA, ALFREDO M. RUBA and ROMEO QUERUBIN, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    QUISUMBING, J.:

    For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated June 23, 2005, and the Resolution2 dated November 25, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 76700 and 76484. The appellate court had reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated March 5, 2002, of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-00-0336 and ordered (1) the reinstatement of respondents Romeo Querubin and Rufino V. Mijares to their respective positions in the government service with full payment of backwages and other benefits, and (2) the full payment of backwages and other benefits of respondent Alfredo M. Ruba.

    The administrative case against respondents stemmed from a controversy involving a parcel of land owned by the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) located in Barangay Pinugay, Baras, Rizal. Claiming that the subject land is covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), members of the Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (SPFMPCI) occupied about 100 hectares thereof. They introduced improvements such as houses, fruit-bearing trees, vegetables, palay and other crops.

    PHILCOMSAT filed a protest before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) claiming that the land was exempt from CARP coverage since it was an integral part of the Philippine Space Communications Operation. The DAR denied the protest. PHILCOMSAT then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.

    During the pendency of the petition, respondent Mayor Roberto G. Ferrera issued an order4 directing respondent Engr. Romeo Querubin to demolish the said houses and improvements. Meanwhile, in a pending case between PHILCOMSAT and SPFMPCI before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, respondent Commissioner Rufino V. Mijares issued an order5 interposing no objection to the order of demolition. Ferrera then directed Querubin to implement the order. He also sought police assistance.

    On March 24, 2000, the houses and improvements on the subject land were demolished and destroyed. As a result, SPFMPCI filed an administrative case for grave misconduct and harassment against respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman.

    In their Joint Counter-Affidavit,6 respondents argued that the SPFMPCI members were not in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO). Thus, they were illegal entrants whose houses and improvements constituted a nuisance that may be abated. More importantly, the houses and improvements were constructed without the required building permits under Section 3017 of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code.8 Thus, its summary demolition was justified under Section 27,9 Article VII of Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.10

    In the meantime, on November 23, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in the Petition for Review of the DAR decision finding the subject land exempt from CARP coverage.11 This was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated June 15, 2006.12 ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    Meanwhile on March 5, 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman declared the demolition unjustified. It noted that the demolished houses and improvements were traditional indigenous family dwellings intended for the use and occupancy by the owner's family only and made of native materials, the total cost of which does not exceed P15,000 and deemed exempted from the payment of building permit fees. It added that the fact that the same were constructed without the necessary building permits do not automatically necessitate its demolition since only dangerous or ruinous buildings or structures may be ordered repaired, vacated or demolished under Section 21513 of P.D. No. 1096. In this case, the demolished houses and improvements were neither dangerous nor ruinous. Further, the same cannot be summarily demolished under Section 27, Article VII of Rep. Act No. 7279 since the law does not apply to rural lands and lands under CARP coverage. In conclusion, the Office of the Ombudsman held respondents guilty of grave misconduct for their flagrant disregard of established rules, thus:

    WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, this Office hereby find[s]:

    (1) Respondents RUFINO V. MIJARES, Commissioner, Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems with office address at Aries Bldg., 103 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City; MAYOR ROBERT FERRERA, Municipal Mayor, Baras, Rizal; ENGR. ROMEO QUERUBIN, Municipal Engineer, Baras, Rizal, and ALFREDO RUBA, Barangay Chairman of Barangay Pinugay, Baras, Rizal GUILTY of the administrative offense of GRAVE MISCONDUCT with the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS, CANCELLATION OF ELIGIBILITY, AND THE PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE pursuant to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and the pertinent provisions of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 otherwise known as the "UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE".

    (2) Respondents LUIZO TICMAN, PNP Superintendent, Provincial Director of the Rizal Provincial Office and ORLANDO PAZ, Police Inspector, Baras, Rizal Police Station are hereby EXONERATED and the case against them DISMISSED.

    (3) The Governor of the Province of Rizal, the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Secretary of the Department of Justice are hereby directed to immediately implement this Decision in accordance with law and to inform this Office of their action within thirty (30) days upon receipt [hereof].

    SO ORDERED.14

    Mijares, Ferrera and Ruba filed a joint motion for reconsideration while Querubin filed a separate motion for reconsideration. Both motions were denied. Thus, they filed petitions for review with the Court of Appeals which were later consolidated.

    On June 23, 2005, the appellate court ruled that: First, the order of demolition was based solely on the failure of the SPFMPCI members to secure the necessary building permits to construct the houses and improvements. According to the order, this violated Section 301 of P.D. No. 1096 thereby warranting summary demolition under Section 27, Article VII of Rep. Act No. 7279. Second, respondents presented a list of the SPFMPCI members whose houses and improvements were demolished as well as a list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the MARO and PARO. None of the SPFMPCI members was in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings. Thus, they are not the owners or bona fide occupants of the subject land and may be summarily evicted therefrom. Third, Section 2815 of Rep. Act No. 7279 which sets the guidelines in executing eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens does not apply to the eviction or demolition of professional squatters. Neither are they entitled to the benefits of resettlement and/or relocation under Rep. Act No. 7279. The mere identification of persons or groups as professional squatters or squatting syndicates is sufficient authority for the local government unit concerned to summarily evict them and to demolish their dwellings or structures as well as to disqualify them from availing the benefits of Rep. Act No. 7279.

    The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals' decision reads:

    WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dated March 5, 2002, as well as the order dated February 17, 2003 in OMB-ADM-0-00-0336 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Romeo Querubin and Rufino V. Mijares are hereby REINSTATED immediately to their respective positions in the government service, more particularly in the Office of the Mayor, Municipality of Baras, Rizal and the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), with full payment of backwages and other benefits upon finality of this decision. Petitioner Alfredo Ruba, who was re-elected as Barangay Chairman of Pinugay, Baras, Rizal in the 2002 barangay election, is likewise entitled to full payment of backwages and other benefits upon the finality of this decision.16

    SO ORDERED.17

    Dissatisfied, the Office of the Ombudsman appealed to this Court raising the following issues:

    I.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE SUMMARY DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSES OWNED BY FARMER-MEMBERS OF THE SPFMPCI WAS VALID UNDER R.A. 7279 AND P.D. 1096.

    II.

    WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

    III.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS VALID.18

    There are two issues for our resolution: first, whether the summary demolition of the houses and improvements was justified under Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096; and second, whether respondents were guilty of grave misconduct.

    The Office of the Ombudsman contends that respondents acted in bad faith in proceeding with the demolition although they knew that Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 were inapplicable. Rep. Act No. 7279 applies only to urbanized areas and does not include the subject land which is under CARP coverage. Respondents also failed to follow the prescribed guidelines in carrying out a demolition. On the other hand, P.D. No. 1096 exempts from the payment of building permit fees traditional indigenous family dwellings such as the demolished houses and improvements in this case. Likewise, only dangerous or ruinous buildings or structures may be ordered repaired, vacated or demolished. The Office of the Ombudsman concludes that respondents were guilty of grave misconduct.

    Respondents Mijares, Ferrera and Ruba counter that they were charged with violating Rep. Act No. 7279. If this law is inapplicable to the instant case, then they have no liability at all. They add that in the criminal case against them, the Office of the Ombudsman recognized that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters.19 They ratiocinate that as such, they should be summarily abated whether the subject land was urbanized or not. They also argue that even if Rep. Act No. 7279 was inapplicable, they enforced the demolition in good faith. On the other hand, respondent Querubin reiterates that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters who are not entitled to protection under either Rep. Act No. 7279 or P.D. No. 1096.

    It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence as is required in an ordinary civil case; rather, it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.20 A thorough examination of the records of this case reveals that such quantum of proof was not met here.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    Foremost, we find the reliance of both parties on the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 to determine the propriety of the demolition implemented by respondents, misplaced.

    Rep. Act No. 7279 covers lands in urban and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority development, zonal improvement sites, slum improvement and resettlement sites, and in other areas that may be identified by the local government units as suitable for socialized housing.21 On the other hand, P.D. No. 1096 applies to the design, location, sitting, construction, alteration, repair, conversion, use, occupancy, maintenance, moving, demolition of, and addition to public and private buildings and structures, except traditional indigenous family dwellings as defined therein.22

    The parcel of land involved in this case hosts the Philippine Space Communications Center which consists of a satellite earth station that serves as the communications gateway of the Philippines to more than two-thirds of the world.23 It was declared by P.D. No. 1845,24 as amended by P.D. No. 1848,25 as a security zone to ensure its security and uninterrupted operation considering the vital role of the earth station in the country's telecommunications and national development.26 The law also placed it under the jurisdiction of the Ministry (now Department) of National Defense which has the power and the authority to determine who can occupy the areas within the security zone, and how the lands shall be utilized.27

    Clearly, P.D. Nos. 1845 and 1848 should govern notwithstanding the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 since the former laws have specific reference to the use and occupation of the parcel of land in this case.

    Based on these laws, we find the demolition implemented by respondents in order. The SPFMPCI members occupied and introduced improvements in the parcel of land under no right, title or vested interest whatsoever. They never secured the prior written permission of the Secretary of National Defense as required by law. Although the land was initially placed under CARP coverage and they claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries, they were not included in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the MARO and PARO.28 In short, the SPFMPCI members never controverted the evidence presented by respondents that they (the SPFMPCI members) were illegal occupants of the land. Interestingly, even the Office of the Ombudsman recognized in the criminal case against respondents that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters.

    If under Rep. Act No. 7279, demolition and eviction are allowed when individuals have been identified as professional squatters and squatting syndicates29 or when they occupy danger areas and other public places,30 and under P.D. No. 1096, they construct dangerous and ruinous buildings or structures, 31 then with more reason the SPFMPCI members should be summarily evicted and their structures and dwellings demolished. The parcel of land involved in this case is a security zone whose operations must be protected from any form of disruption. It must be protected from all types of squatters, including the SPFMPCI members, who might create danger to a very important national telecommunications facility.

    Having said that, we do not find respondents guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.32

    Respondents rightfully determined the occupation by the SPFMPCI members unauthorized (albeit on a different basis). As the Court of Appeals observed, respondents also presented a list of settlers who were affected by the demolition. The production of such list was made to support their claim that they notified the SPFMPCI members of the demolition and that a conference was held prior thereto.33 Had respondents been impelled by ill motive, they would not have taken measures to properly identify who were legal occupants and who were squatters in the parcel of land in this case. Clearly, respondents acted within the limits of the law when they implemented the demolition.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 23, 2005 and the Resolution dated November 25, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 76700 and 76484 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.


    Endnotes:


    * Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.

    ** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635.

    1 Rollo, pp. 46-65. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.

    2 Id. at 66-67. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.

    3 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), pp. 48-64.

    4 Id. at 27.

    5 Id. at 26.

    6 Id. at 44-47.

    7 SECTION 301. Building Permits

    No person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done.

    8 Promulgated on February 19, 1977.

    9 Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined.

    Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws.

    For purposes of this Act, professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates shall be imposed the penalty of six (6) years imprisonment or a fine of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court.

    10 An Act to Provide for a Comprehensive and Continuing Urban Development and Housing Program, Establish the Mechanism for its Implementation, and for Other Purposes, approved on March 24, 1992.

    11 Rollo, p. 59; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), p. 71.

    12 Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., G.R. No. 152640, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 729.

    13 Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings

    When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    14 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), pp. 62-63.

    15 Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:

    (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;

    (b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or

    (c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.

    In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

    (1) Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;

    (2) Adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

    (3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;

    (4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;

    (5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;

    (6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;

    (7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; andcralawlibrary

    (8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.

    The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the above provision.

    16 Records show that at the time the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its decision on March 5, 2002 ordering respondents' dismissal from the service, Mayor Ferrera had already served his term as mayor. The COMELEC records also show that unlike Barangay Chairman Alfredo Ruba, Mayor Ferrera was not re-elected since it was Dionisio Donato T. Garciano who won the 2001 mayoralty race. Thus, there was no grant of any backwages and other benefits in favor of Mayor Ferrera.

    17 Rollo, pp. 64-65.

    18 Id. at 21.

    19 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 132-141.

    20 Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129124, March 15, 2002, 379 SCRA 322, 329.

    21 Section 4, Article II.

    22 Section 103(a).

    23 Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., supra at 731.

    24 Declaring the Area within a Radius of Three Kilometers Surrounding the Satellite Earth Station in Baras, Rizal, a Security Zone. Done on April 30, 1982.

    25 Revising Presidential Decree No. 1845, Declaring the Surrounding Area of the Satellite Earth Station in Baras, Rizal Province, a Security Zone. Done on July 29, 1982.

    26 Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., supra at 735-736.

    27 Id. at 736.

    28 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 104-107.

    29 Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. - The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined.

    Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws.

    xxxx

    30 Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. - Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:

    (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;

    (b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or

    (c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.

    xxxx

    31 Section 214. Dangerous and Ruinous Buildings or Structures. - Dangerous buildings are those which are herein declared as such or are structurally unsafe or not provided with safe egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment; or which otherwise contribute to the pollution of the site or the community to an intolerable degree.

    Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. - When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    32 Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 652, 663; Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 9, 16.

    33 CA rollo, (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 108-110.

    G.R. NOS. 170615-16 - The Repuclic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and Romeo Querubin.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED