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
 

   
January-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 181298 : January 10, 2011 BELLE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176339 : January 10, 2011 DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC., SPS. DOMINGO LIM and LELY KUNG LIM, Petitioners, v. SECURITY BANK CORP., TITOLAIDO E. PAYONGAYONG, EVYLENE C. SISON, PHIL. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORP. and GIL SILOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188792 : January 10, 2011 SPOUSES GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Respondent. G.R. Nos. 190677-78 : January 10, 2011 GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 190699-700 : January 10, 2011 BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 ELENITA C. FAJARDO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180452 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min, and RaymOnd S. Tan, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 171379 : January 10, 2011 JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioners, v. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FAR EAST BANK INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., and MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. G.R. No. 171419 : January 10, 2011 FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181930 : January 10, 2011 MILAGROS SALTING, Petitioner, v. JOHN VELEZ and CLARISSA R. VELEZ, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 08-2995-RTJ) : January 10, 2011 PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON H. TILAN, Complainant, v. JUDGE ESTER PISCOSO-FLOR, RTC, BRANCH 34, BANAUE, IFUGAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184954 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190122 : January 10, 2011 SPOUSES ISAGANI and DIOSDADA CASTRO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES REGINO SE and VIOLETA DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES EDUARDO and CHARITO PEREZ and MARCELINO TOLENTINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188314 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, and other JOHN and JANE DOES, Accused, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 178895 : January 10, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Respondent. G.R. No. 179071 : January 10, 2011 SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the Honorable Secretary, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179446 : January 10, 2011 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION AND R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182547 : January 10, 2011 CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ARMI S. ABEL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168646 : January 12, 2011 LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioner, v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ, Respondent. G.R. No. 168666 : January 12, 2011 DELTA DEVELOPMENT and MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167291 : January 12, 2011 PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. and MR. RENATO CLAROS, Petitioners, v. DIOSDADO GARCIA, LUISITO GARCIA, RODANTE ROMERO, REX BARTOLOME, FELICIANO GASCO, JR., DANILO ROJO, EDGAR SANFUEGO, AMADO GALANTO, EUTIQUIO LUGTU, JOEL GRAMATICA, MIEL CERVANTES, TERESITA CABANES, ROE DELA CRUZ, RICHELO BALIDOY, VILMA PORRAS, MIGUELITO SALCEDO, CRISTINA GARCIA, MARIO NAZARENO, DINDO TORRES, ESMAEL RAMBOYONG, ROBETO* MANO, ROGELIO BAGAWISAN, ARIEL SNACHEZ, ESTAQULO VILLAREAL, NELSON MONTERO, GLORIA ORANTE, HARRY TOCA, PABLITO MACASAET and RONALD GARCITA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172508 : January 12, 2011 HEIRS OF SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, Petitioner, v. HON. J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, Presiding Judge, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City; GERRY D. SUMACULUB, as Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court; BOMBO RADYO HOLDINGS, INC., and ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., Respondents

  • G.R. No. 178296 : January 12, 2011 THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179419 : January 12, 2011 DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of City Garden Hotel, Petitioner, v. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. NO. 189806 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y TRESBALLES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191721 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175330 : January 12, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RODOLFO CAPITLE and ARTURO NAGARES, Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 175891 : January 12, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RESINS, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176019 : January 12, 2011 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER, INC. and RENATO C. TAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2696 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2956-P] : January 12, 2011 FREDDY H. REYES, Complainant, v. VIVIAN L. PABILANE, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAGKAWAYAN, QUEZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190640 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2179 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-5-169-MCTC) : January 12, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MERLINDA T. CUACHON, Clerk of Court, and FE P. ALEJANO, Court Stenographer, both of the MCTC, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011 JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190521 : January 12, 2011 LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER, ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN, CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY JOY TAN, and MARK ALLAN TAN, represented herein by their mother, LETICIA TAN, Petitioners, v. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO ARAMBALA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 148076 : January 12, 2011 ANTONIO M. CARANDANG, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent. G.R. No. 153161 : January 12, 2011 ANTONIO M. CARANDANG, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172378: January 17, 2011 SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC., (Formerly INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185163 : January 17, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLO MAGNO AURE y ARNALDO and MELCHOR AUSTRIACO y AGUILA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

  • CONCURRING OPINION : SERENO, J. : G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2788 : January 18, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court, Sudipen, La Union, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2198*: January 18, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180388 : January 18, 2011 GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOEL L. ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER ANGELITO M. TWAÑO, FELIX A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP VALIDATION AND AUDITING TEAM, AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN, VICTORINO C. SANTOS OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, Petitioners, v. ARNULFO D. AQUINO , Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182591 : January 18, 2011 MODESTO AGYAO, JR., Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165423: January 19, 2011 NILO PADRE, Petitioner, v. FRUCTOSA BADILLO, FEDILA BADILLO, PRESENTACION CABALLES, EDWINA VICARIO (d) represented by MARY JOY VICARIO-ORBETA and NELSON BADILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 168757: January 19, 2011 RENATO REAL, Petitioner, v. SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. and/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172577 : January 19, 2011 SOLEDAD DALTON, Petitioner, v. FGR REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FELIX NG, NENITA NG, and FLORA R. DAYRIT or FLORA REGNER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011 PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDO DAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO and ALFREDO SUAREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178044 : January 19, 2011 ALAIN M. DIÑO, Petitioner, v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177937 : January 19, 2011 ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION and/or JESS MANUEL, Petitioners, v. IRENE R. RANCHEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187725 : January 19, 2011 BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA and JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176264 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J : January 11, 2011 RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA - MINDANAO STATION

  • G.R. No. 176264 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J : January 11, 2011 RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA - MINDANAO STATION

  • A.M. No. 08-4-253-RTC : January 12, 2011 IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN, AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49, SAME COURT.

  • G.R. No. 178741 : January 17, 2011 ROSALINO L. MARABLE, PETITIONER, VS. MYRNA F. MARABLE, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3335-RTJ) : January 17, 2011 SPOUSES DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO, COMPLAINANTS, UDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, GINGOOG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • G. R. No. 177790 : January 17, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CARLOS R. VEGA, MARCOS R. VEGA, ROGELIO R. VEGA, LUBIN R. VEGA, HEIRS OF GLORIA R. VEGA, NAMELY: FRACISCO L. YAP, MA. WINONA Y. RODRIGUEZ, MA. WENDELYN V. YAP AND FRANCISCO V. YAP, JR., RESPONDENTS, ROMEA G. BUHAY-OCAMPO, FRANCISCO G. BUHAY, ARCELI G. BUHAY-RODRIGUEZ, ORLANDO G. BUHAY, SOLEDAD G. BUHAY-VASQUEZ, LOIDA G. BUHAY-SENADOSA, FLORENDO G. BUHAY, OSCAR G. BUHAY, ERLYN BUHAY-GINORGA, EVELYN BUHAY-GRANETA, AND EMILIE BUHAY-DALLAS, RESPONDENTS-INTERVENORS.

  • G.R. No. 191459 : January 17, 2011 BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO, PETITIONERS, VS. BIO RESEARCH, INC. AND WILSON Y. ANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2173 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3084-RTJ) : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE BENJAMIN P. ESTRADA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, AND JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES-BACAL, RTC, BRANCH 10, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. P-03-1730 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1469-P) : January 18, 2011] JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, MARTIN GUMARANG, VIC JUMALON, LEONARDO LUCAS, WILFREDO DEUS, CORAZON AZARRAGA AND ALICE BUENAFE, Complainants, v. OIC BRANCH CLERK OF COURT BABE SJ. RAMIREZ, CLERK VIOLETA P. FLORDELIZA AND SHERIFF IV CARLOS A. SALVADOR, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062* : January 18, 2011] IMELDA R. MARCOS, Complainant, v. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2198* : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2887 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-2-32-MTCRe: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of the Municipal Trial Court, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija) : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MARISSA U. ANGELES,CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PANTABANGAN, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent [A.M. NO. P-10-2880 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 08-2782-P) : January 18, 2011] JUDGE ANALIE C. ALDEA-AROCENA, Complainant, v. MARISSA U. ANGELES, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PANTABANGAN NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA : January 18, 2011] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2799 : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. VICTORIO A. DION, FORMER CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN FABIAN-SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN, Respondents

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] : CONCURRING OPINION - ABAD, J.: DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor.

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] : DISSENTING OPINION - CARPIO, J.: DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor.

  • [G.R. No. 179617 : January 19, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 187725 : January 19, 2011] BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDO DAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO AND ALFREDO SUAREZ, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-1933-MTJ] : January 19, 2011] FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, Complainant, v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, VALLADOLID-SAN ENRIQUE-PULUPANDAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 165423 : January 19, 2011] NILO PADRE, Petitioner, v. FRUCTOSA BADILLO, FEDILA BADILLO, PRESENTACION CABALLES, EDWINA VICARIO (D) REPRESENTED BY MARY JOY VICARIO-ORBETA AND NELSON BADILLO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 154462 : January 19, 2011] SPOUSES RUBEN AND MYRNA LEYNES, Petitioners, v. FORMER TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, AND SPOUSES GUALBERTO & RENE CABAHUG-SUPERALES, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1788-RTJ) : January 19, 2011] MANSUETA T. RUBIN, Complainant, v. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, HIMAMAYLAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 185715 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 177570 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 183843 : January 19, 2011] GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 180909 : January 19, 2011] EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL HOLDINGS, INC. - PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 178039 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 184063 : January 24, 2011] CYNTHIA E. YAMBAO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PATRICIO E. YAMBAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 176438 : January 24, 2011] PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, INC., RURAL BANK OF CARMEN (CEBU), INC., BANK OF EAST ASIA (MINGLANILLA, CEBU) INC., AND PILIPINO RURAL BANK (CEBU), INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 160923 : January 24, 2011] MOISES TINIO, JR. AND FRANCIS TINIO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Respondent. [G.R. NO. 161093 : January 24, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MOISES TINIO, JR. AND FRANCIS TINIO, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 169942 : January 24, 2011] BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS THRU BARANGAY CAPTAIN MA. ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI, Petitioner, v.CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL, DR. AMADO J. PIAMONTE, REGINA PIAMONTE TAMBUNTING, CELINE CONCEPCION LEBRON AND CECILE CUNA COLINA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 172804 : January 24, 2011] GONZALO VILLANUEVA, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FROILAN AND LEONILA BRANOCO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 192280 : January 25, 2011] SERGIO G. AMORA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARNIELO S. OLANDRIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2364 : January 25, 2011] REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY AND ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR. A.M. NO. P-11-2902 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 08-2790-P) VIRGILIO O. GALLANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO, JR., CLERK OF COURT, AND SONIA L. DY, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER II, BOTH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167622 : January 25, 2011] GREGORIO V. TONGKO, PETITIONER, VS. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. AND RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-90-488 : January 25, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE M. RAMANO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 140, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191198 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187320 : January 26, 2011] ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC. AND/OR ROBERT CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. APRILITO R. SEBOLINO, KHIM V. COSTALES, ALVIN V. ALMOITE, AND JOSEPH S. SAGUN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186528 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HEMIANO DE JESUS AND RODELO MORALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184202 : January 26, 2011] AQUINAS SCHOOL, PETITIONER, VS. CARPIO, J., CHAIRPERSON, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, AND MENDOZA, JJ. SPS. JOSE INTON AND MA. VICTORIA S. INTON, ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, JOSE LUIS S. INTON, AND SR. MARGARITA YAMYAMIN, OP, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181833 : January 26, 2011] INTERNATIONAL FREEPORT TRADERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANZAS INTERCONTINENTAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181146 : January 26, 2011] THE UNIVERSITY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND MO. MARIA ASSUMPTA DAVID, RVM, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND TEODORA AXALAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192237 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179428 : January 26, 2011] PRIMO E. CAONG, JR., ALEXANDER J. TRESQUIO, AND LORIANO D. DALUYON, PETITIONERS, VS. AVELINO REGUALOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 159471 : January 26, 2011] ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167459 : January 26, 2011] JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA, PETITIONER, VS. BONA J. ALANO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2627 : January 26, 2011] REINA EDENLYNE GARCIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROBERT V. ALEJO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2817 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.09-3089-P] : January 26, 2011] CORAZON TENORIO, REPRESENTED BY IMELDA TENORIO-ORTIZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALYN C. PERLAS, SHERIFF III,RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185166 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177685 : January 26, 2011] HEIRS OF RAMON C. GAITE, CYNTHIA GOROSTIZA GAITE AND RHOGEN BUILDERS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PLAZA, INC. AND FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176819 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ROBERT P. BALAO, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, VIRGILIO V. DACALOS, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 174725 : January 26, 2011] ALEXANDER B. GATUS, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 172224 : January 26, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DINAH C. BARRIGA, Respondents.

  • IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS AND BENJAMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 184091 : January 31, 2011] EDWARD GARRICK VILLENA AND PERCIVAL DOROJA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NOMAR B. DEGERON, CHRISTIAN DANDAN, AND ELIZABETH BORCELIS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 182301 : January 31, 2011] JAIME ALFEREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PINGPING CO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 188847 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO VICENTE, JR. Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175404 : January 31, 2011] CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 187912-14 : January 31, 2011] JOEY P. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176287 : January 31, 2011] HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. - MEDICAL CENTER MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. - MEDICAL CENTER MANILA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW AND EDNA R. DE CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. OCA IPI NO. 10-3380-RTJ] : January 31, 2011] ELADIO D. PERFECTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185685 : January 31, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. NIETO A. RACHO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191889 : January 31, 2011] SPS. IRENEO T. FERNANDO (SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR HEIRS, RONALDO M. FERNANDO, CONCORDIA FERNANDO-JAYME, ESMERALDA M. FERNANDO, ANTONETTE M. FERNANDO-REGONDOLA, FERDINAND M. FERNANDO, AND JEAN MARIE FERNANDO-CANSANAY), AND MONSERRAT MAGSALIN FERNANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCELINO T. FERNANDO, RESPONDENT. MATIAS I. FERNANDO AND PANFILO M. FERNANDO,[1] IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATORS [OF THE ESTATE] OF THE LATE JULIANA T. FERNANDO, RESPONDENTS-INTERVENORS.

  • [G.R. No. 175473 : January 31, 2011] HILARIO P. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIA THERESA V. MENDOZA-ARCEGA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 17, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS, BULACAN; AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181039 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185535 : January 31, 2011] MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. REYNALDO (REYMUNDO[1]) AVILA, CALIXTO AGUIRRE, AND SPS. ROLANDO AND ANGELITA QUILANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180013 : January 31, 2011] DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE (DEARBC), PETITIONER, VS. JESUS SANGUNAY AND SONNY LABUNOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179961 : January 31, 2011] KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192898 : January 31, 2011] SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD AND CECILIA TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. VICTOR ANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168501 : January 31, 2011] ISLRIZ TRADING/ VICTOR HUGO LU, PETITIONER, VS. EFREN CAPADA, LAURO LICUP, NORBERTO NIGOS, RONNIE ABEL, GODOFREDO MAGNAYE, ARNEL SIBERRE, EDMUNDO CAPADA, NOMERLITO MAGNAYE AND ALBERTO DELA VEGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186120 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EVANGELINE SOBANGEE Y EDAÑO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011] ELENITA C. FAJARDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2837-RTJ) : January 18, 2011] VICTORIANO SY,COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OSCAR E. DINOPOL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, KORONADAL CITY, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 175404 : January 31, 2011]   CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC., RESPONDENT.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 175404 : January 31, 2011]

    CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC., RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    PERALTA, J.:

    Before us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated July 31, 2006 and the Resolution[2] dated November 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 50304.cralaw

    The factual antecedents are as follows:

    On June 18, 1998, respondent San Fernando Regala Trading, Inc. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages[3]  against petitioner Cargill Philippines, Inc.  In its Complaint, respondent alleged that it was engaged in buying and selling of molasses and petitioner was one of its various sources from whom  it purchased molasses. Respondent alleged that it entered into a contract dated July 11, 1996 with petitioner, wherein it was agreed upon that respondent would purchase from petitioner 12,000 metric tons of Thailand origin cane blackstrap molasses at the price of US$192 per metric ton; that the delivery of the molasses was to be made in January/February 1997 and payment was to be made by means of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit payable at sight, to be opened by September 15, 1996; that sometime prior to September 15, 1996, the parties agreed that instead of January/February 1997,  the delivery would be made in April/May 1997 and that payment would be by an Irrevocable Letter of Credit payable at sight, to be opened upon petitioner's advice. Petitioner, as seller, failed to comply with its obligations under the contract, despite demands from respondent, thus, the latter prayed for rescission of the contract and payment of damages.

    On July 24, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings and To Refer Controversy to Voluntary Arbitration,[4] wherein it argued that the alleged contract between the parties, dated July 11, 1996, was never consummated because respondent never returned the proposed agreement bearing its written acceptance or conformity nor did respondent open the Irrevocable Letter of Credit at sight.  Petitioner contended that the controversy between the parties was whether or not the alleged contract between the parties was legally in existence and the RTC was not the proper forum to ventilate such issue. It claimed that the contract contained an arbitration clause, to wit:cralaw

    ARBITRATION

    Any dispute which the Buyer and Seller may not be able to settle by mutual agreement shall be settled by arbitration in the City of New York before the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitration Award shall be final and binding on both parties.[5]

    that respondent must first comply with the arbitration clause before resorting to court, thus, the RTC must either dismiss the case or suspend the proceedings and direct the parties to proceed with arbitration, pursuant to Sections 6[6] and 7[7] of  Republic Act (R.A.) No. 876, or the Arbitration Law.

    Respondent filed an Opposition, wherein it argued that the RTC has jurisdiction over the action for rescission of contract and could not be changed by the subject arbitration clause. It cited cases wherein arbitration clauses, such as the subject clause in the contract, had been struck down as void for being contrary to public policy since it provided that the arbitration award shall be final and binding on both parties, thus, ousting the courts of jurisdiction.

    In its Reply, petitioner maintained that the cited decisions were already inapplicable, having been rendered prior to the effectivity of the New Civil Code in 1950 and the Arbitration Law in 1953.

    In its Rejoinder, respondent argued that the arbitration clause relied upon by petitioner is invalid and unenforceable, considering that the requirements imposed by the provisions of the Arbitration Law had not been complied with.

    By way of Sur-Rejoinder, petitioner contended that respondent had even clarified that the issue boiled down to whether the arbitration clause contained in the contract subject of the complaint is valid and enforceable; that the arbitration clause did not violate any of the cited provisions of the Arbitration Law.

    On September 17, 1998, the RTC rendered an Order,[8] the dispositive portion of which reads:

    Premises considered, defendant's "Motion To Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings and To Refer Controversy To Voluntary Arbitration" is hereby DENIED. Defendant is directed to file its answer within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this order.[9]

    In denying the motion, the RTC found that there was no clear basis for petitioner's plea to dismiss the case, pursuant to Section 7 of the Arbitration Law. The RTC said that the provision directed the court concerned only to stay the action or proceeding brought upon an issue arising out of an agreement providing for the arbitration thereof, but did not impose the sanction of dismissal.  However, the RTC did not find the suspension of the proceedings warranted, since the Arbitration Law contemplates an arbitration proceeding that must be conducted in the Philippines under the jurisdiction and control of the RTC; and before an arbitrator who resides in the country; and that the arbitral award is subject to court approval, disapproval and modification, and that there must be an appeal from the judgment of the RTC.  The RTC found that the arbitration clause in question contravened these procedures, i.e., the arbitration clause contemplated an arbitration proceeding in New York before a non-resident arbitrator (American Arbitration Association); that the arbitral award shall be final and binding on both parties. The RTC said that to apply Section 7 of the Arbitration Law to such an agreement would result in disregarding the other sections of the same law and rendered them useless and mere surplusages.

    Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order[10] dated November 25, 1998.

    Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA raising the sole issue that the RTC acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss or at least suspend the proceedings a quo, despite the fact that the party's agreement to arbitrate had not been complied with.

    Respondent filed its Comment and Reply. The parties were then required to file their respective Memoranda.

    On July 31, 2006, the CA rendered its assailed Decision denying the petition and affirming the RTC Orders.

    In denying the petition, the CA found that stipulation providing for arbitration in contractual obligation is both valid and constitutional; that arbitration as an alternative mode of dispute resolution has long been accepted in our jurisdiction and expressly provided for in the Civil Code; that R.A. No.  876 (the Arbitration Law) also expressly authorized the arbitration of domestic disputes.  The CA found error in the RTC's holding that Section 7 of R.A. No. 876 was inapplicable to arbitration clause simply because the clause failed to comply with the requirements prescribed by the law.  The CA found that there was nothing in the Civil Code, or R.A. No.  876, that require that arbitration proceedings must be conducted only in the Philippines and the arbitrators should be Philippine residents.  It also found that the RTC ruling effectively invalidated not only the disputed arbitration clause, but all other agreements which provide for foreign arbitration. The CA did not find illegal or against public policy the arbitration clause so as to render it null and void or ineffectual.

    Notwithstanding such findings, the CA still held that the case cannot be brought under the Arbitration Law for the purpose of suspending the proceedings before the RTC, since in its Motion to Dismiss/Suspend proceedings, petitioner alleged, as one of the grounds thereof,  that the subject contract between the parties did not exist or it was invalid; that the said contract bearing the arbitration clause was never consummated by the parties, thus, it was proper that such issue be first resolved by the court through an appropriate trial; that the issue involved a question of fact that the RTC should first resolve.  Arbitration is not proper when one of the parties repudiated the existence or validity of the contract.

    Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 13, 2006.cralaw

    Hence, this petition.

    Petitioner alleges that the CA committed an error of law in ruling that arbitration cannot proceed despite the fact that: (a) it had ruled, in its assailed decision, that the arbitration clause is valid, enforceable and binding on the parties; (b) the case of Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.[11] is inapplicable here; (c) parties are generally allowed, under the Rules of Court, to adopt several defenses, alternatively or hypothetically, even if such defenses are inconsistent with each other; and (d) the complaint filed by respondent with the trial court is premature.

    Petitioner alleges that the CA adopted inconsistent positions when it found the arbitration clause between the parties as valid and enforceable and yet in the same breath decreed that the arbitration cannot proceed because petitioner assailed the existence of the entire agreement containing the arbitration clause.  Petitioner claims the inapplicability of the cited Gonzales case decided in 2005, because in the present case, it was respondent who had filed the complaint for rescission and damages with the RTC, which based its cause of action against petitioner on the alleged agreement dated July 11, 2006 between the parties; and that the same agreement contained the arbitration clause sought to be enforced by petitioner in this case. Thus, whether petitioner assails the genuineness and due execution of the agreement, the fact remains that the agreement sued upon provides for an arbitration clause; that respondent cannot use the provisions favorable to him and completely disregard those that are unfavorable, such as the arbitration clause.

    Petitioner contends that as the defendant in the RTC, it presented two alternative defenses, i.e., the parties had not entered into any agreement upon which respondent as plaintiff can sue upon; and, assuming that such agreement existed, there was an arbitration clause that should be enforced, thus, the dispute must first be submitted to arbitration before an action can be instituted in court.  Petitioner argues that under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, included as a ground to dismiss a complaint is when a condition precedent for filing the complaint has not been complied with; and that submission to arbitration when such has been agreed upon is one such condition precedent.  Petitioner submits that the proceedings in the RTC must be dismissed, or at least suspended, and the parties be ordered to proceed with arbitration.

    On March 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Manifestation[12] saying that the CA's rationale in declining to order arbitration based on the 2005 Gonzales ruling had been modified upon a motion for reconsideration decided in 2007; that the CA decision lost its legal basis, because it had been ruled that the arbitration agreement can be implemented notwithstanding that one of the parties thereto repudiated the contract which contained such agreement based on the doctrine of separability.

    In its Comment, respondent argues that certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy against an order denying a Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings and To Refer Controversy to Voluntary Arbitration.  It claims that the Arbitration Law which petitioner invoked as basis for its Motion prescribed, under its Section 29, a remedy, i.e., appeal by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.  Respondent contends that the Gonzales case, which was decided in 2007, is inapplicable in this case, especially as to the doctrine of separability enunciated therein. Respondent argues that even if the existence of the contract and the arbitration clause is conceded, the decisions of the RTC and the CA declining referral of the dispute between the parties to arbitration would still be correct. This is so because respondent's complaint filed in Civil Case No. 98-1376 presents the principal issue of whether under the facts alleged in the complaint, respondent is entitled to rescind its contract with petitioner and for the latter to pay damages; that such issue constitutes a judicial question or one that requires the exercise of judicial function and cannot be the subject of arbitration.

    Respondent contends that Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which allowed a defendant to adopt in the same action several defenses, alternatively or hypothetically, even if such defenses are inconsistent with each other refers to allegations in the pleadings, such as complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint, answer, but not to a motion to dismiss.  Finally, respondent claims that petitioner's argument is premised on the existence of a contract with respondent containing a provision for arbitration.  However, its reliance on the contract, which it repudiates, is inappropriate.

    In its Reply, petitioner insists that respondent filed an action for rescission and damages on the basis of the contract, thus, respondent admitted the existence of all the provisions contained thereunder, including the arbitration clause; that if respondent relies on said contract for its cause of action against petitioner, it must also consider itself bound by the rest of the terms and conditions contained thereunder notwithstanding that respondent may find some provisions to be  adverse to its position; that respondent's citation of the Gonzales case, decided in 2005, to show that the validity of the contract cannot be the subject of the arbitration proceeding and that it is the RTC which has the jurisdiction to resolve the situation between the parties herein, is not correct since in the resolution of the Gonzales' motion for reconsideration in 2007, it had been ruled that an arbitration agreement is effective notwithstanding the fact that one of the parties thereto repudiated the main contract which contained it.

    We first address the procedural issue raised by respondent that petitioner's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed in the CA against an RTC Order denying a Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings and to Refer Controversy to Voluntary Arbitration was a wrong remedy invoking Section 29 of R.A. No. 876,  which provides:

    Section 29.

    x x x An appeal may be taken from an order made in a proceeding under this Act, or from a judgment entered upon an award through certiorari proceedings, but such appeals shall be limited to question of law.  x x x.

    To support its argument, respondent cites the case of Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.[13] (Gonzales case), wherein we ruled the impropriety of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a mode of appeal from an RTC Order directing the parties to arbitration.cralaw

    We find the cited case not in point.

    In the Gonzales case, Climax-Arimco filed before the RTC of Makati a petition to compel arbitration under R.A. No. 876, pursuant to the arbitration clause found in the Addendum Contract it entered with Gonzales. Judge Oscar Pimentel of the RTC of Makati then directed the parties to arbitration proceedings. Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari with Us  contending that Judge Pimentel acted with grave abuse of discretion in immediately ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration despite the proper, valid and timely raised argument in his Answer with counterclaim that the Addendum Contract containing the arbitration clause was null and void. Climax-Arimco assailed the mode of review availed of by Gonzales, citing Section 29 of  R.A. No. 876 contending that certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of only if there was no appeal or any adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; that R.A. No. 876 provides for an appeal from such order. We then ruled that Gonzales' petition for certiorari should be dismissed as it was filed in lieu of an appeal by certiorari which was the prescribed remedy under R.A. No. 876 and the petition was filed far beyond the reglementary period.

    We found that Gonzales' petition for certiorari raises a question of law, but not a question of jurisdiction; that Judge Pimentel acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in R.A. No. 876 when he ordered Gonzales to proceed with arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator after making the determination that there was indeed an arbitration agreement. It had been held that as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction and does not gravely abuse its discretion in the exercise thereof, any supposed error committed by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable by a timely appeal and not assailable by a special civil action of certiorari.[14]

    In this case, petitioner raises before the CA the issue that the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss, or at least suspend, the proceedings a quo, despite the fact that the party's agreement to arbitrate had not been complied with.  Notably, the RTC found the existence of the arbitration clause, since it said in its decision that "hardly disputed is the fact that the arbitration clause in question contravenes several provisions of the Arbitration Law x x x and to apply Section 7 of  the Arbitration Law to such an agreement would result in the disregard of the afore-cited sections of the Arbitration Law and render them useless and mere surplusages."  However, notwithstanding the finding that an arbitration agreement existed, the RTC denied petitioner's motion and directed petitioner to file an answer.

    In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15]  it was held that R.A. No. 876 explicitly confines the court's authority only to the determination of whether or not there is an agreement in writing providing for arbitration.  In the affirmative, the statute ordains that the court shall issue an order summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.  If the court, upon the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, the proceedings shall be dismissed.

    In issuing the Order which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings and to Refer Controversy to Voluntary Arbitration, the RTC went beyond its authority of determining only the issue of whether or not there is an agreement in writing providing for arbitration by directing petitioner to file an answer, instead of ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration. In so doing, it acted in excess of its jurisdiction and since there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner's resort to a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy.

    We now proceed to the substantive issue of whether the CA erred in finding that this case cannot be brought under the arbitration law for the purpose of suspending the proceedings in the RTC.

    We find merit in the petition.

    Arbitration, as an alternative mode of settling disputes, has long been recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction.[16] R.A. No. 876[17] authorizes arbitration of domestic disputes.  Foreign arbitration, as a system of settling commercial disputes of an international character, is likewise recognized.[18]  The enactment of R.A. No. 9285 on April 2, 2004 further institutionalized the use of alternative dispute resolution systems, including arbitration, in the settlement of disputes.[19]

    A contract is required for arbitration to take place and to be binding.[20]  Submission to arbitration is a contract [21] and a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.[22] The provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of the contract and is itself a contract.[23]

    In this case, the contract sued upon by respondent provides for an arbitration clause, to wit:cralaw

    ARBITRATION

    Any dispute which the Buyer and Seller may not be able to settle by mutual agreement shall be settled by arbitration in the City of New York before the American Arbitration Association, The Arbitration Award shall be final and binding on both parties.

    The CA ruled that arbitration cannot be ordered in this case, since petitioner alleged that the contract between the parties did not exist or was invalid and arbitration is not proper when one of the parties repudiates the existence or validity of the contract.  Thus, said the CA:

    Notwithstanding our ruling on the validity and enforceability of the assailed arbitration clause providing for foreign arbitration, it is our considered opinion that the case at bench still cannot be brought under the Arbitration Law for the purpose of suspending the proceedings before the trial court. We note that in its Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings, etc, petitioner Cargill alleged, as one of the grounds thereof, that the alleged contract between the parties do not legally exist or is invalid. As posited by petitioner, it is their contention that the said contract, bearing the arbitration clause, was never consummated by the parties. That being the case, it is but proper that such issue be first resolved by the court through an appropriate trial. The issue involves a question of fact that the trial court should first resolve.

    Arbitration is not proper when one of the parties repudiates the existence or validity of the contract. Apropos is Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., 452 SCRA 607, (G.R.No.161957), where the Supreme Court held that:

    The question of validity of the contract containing the agreement to submit to arbitration will affect the applicability of the arbitration clause itself. A party cannot rely on the contract and claim rights or obligations under it and at the same time impugn its existence or validity. Indeed, litigants are enjoined from taking inconsistent positions....

    Consequently, the petitioner herein cannot claim that the contract was never consummated and, at the same time, invokes the arbitration clause provided for under the contract which it alleges to be non-existent or invalid. Petitioner claims that private respondent's complaint lacks a cause of action due to the absence of any valid contract between the parties. Apparently, the arbitration clause is being invoked merely as a fallback position. The petitioner must first adduce evidence in support of its claim that there is no valid contract between them and should the court a quo find the claim to be meritorious, the parties may then be spared the rigors and expenses that arbitration in a foreign land would surely entail.[24]

    However, the Gonzales case,[25] which the CA relied upon for not ordering arbitration, had been modified upon a motion for reconsideration in this wise:

    x x x The adjudication of the petition in G.R. No. 167994 effectively modifies part of the Decision dated 28 February 2005 in G.R. No. 161957. Hence, we now hold that the validity of the contract containing the agreement to submit to arbitration does not affect the applicability of the arbitration clause itself. A contrary ruling would suggest that a party's mere repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid arbitration. That is exactly the situation that the separability doctrine, as well as jurisprudence applying it, seeks to avoid. We add that when it was declared in G.R. No. 161957 that the case should not be brought for arbitration, it should be clarified that the case referred to is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of fraud, as it had already been determined that the case should have been brought before the regular courts involving as it did judicial issues.[26]

    In so ruling that the validity of the contract containing the arbitration agreement does not affect the applicability of the arbitration clause itself, we then applied the doctrine of separability, thus:

    The doctrine of separability, or severability as other writers call it, enunciates that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when the contract of which it is a part comes to an end.

    The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially significant to the determination of whether the invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. Indeed, the doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also referred to as the "container" contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Irrespective of the fact that the main contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still remains valid and enforceable.[27]

    Respondent argues that the separability doctrine is not applicable in petitioner's case, since in the Gonzales case, Climax-Arimco sought to enforce the arbitration clause of its contract with Gonzales and the former's move was premised on the existence of a valid contract; while Gonzales, who resisted the move of Climax-Arimco for arbitration, did not deny the existence of the contract but merely assailed the validity thereof on the ground of fraud and oppression.  Respondent claims that in the case before Us, petitioner who is the party insistent on arbitration also claimed in their Motion to Dismiss/Suspend Proceedings that the contract sought by respondent to be rescinded did not exist or was not consummated; thus, there is no room for the application of the separability doctrine, since there is no container or main contract or an arbitration clause to speak of.cralaw

    We are not persuaded.

    Applying the Gonzales ruling, an arbitration agreement which forms part of the main contract shall not be regarded as invalid or non-existent just because the main contract is invalid or did not come into existence, since the arbitration agreement shall be treated as a separate agreement independent of the main contract.  To reiterate. a contrary ruling would suggest that a party's mere repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid arbitration and that is exactly the situation that the separability doctrine sought to avoid. Thus, we find that even the party who has repudiated the main contract is not prevented from enforcing its arbitration clause.

    Moreover, it is worthy to note that respondent filed a complaint for rescission of contract and damages with the RTC. In so doing, respondent alleged that a contract exists between respondent and petitioner. It is that contract which provides for an arbitration clause which states that "any dispute which the Buyer and Seller may not be able to settle by mutual agreement shall be settled before the City of New York by the American Arbitration Association.  The arbitration agreement clearly expressed the parties' intention that any dispute between them as buyer and seller should be referred to arbitration.  It is for the arbitrator and not the courts to decide whether a contract between the parties exists or is valid.

    Respondent contends that assuming that the existence of the contract and the arbitration clause is conceded, the CA's decision declining referral of the parties' dispute to arbitration is still correct.  It claims that its complaint in the RTC presents the issue of whether under the facts alleged, it is entitled to rescind the contract with damages; and that issue constitutes a judicial question or one that requires the exercise of judicial function and cannot be the subject of an arbitration proceeding. Respondent cites our ruling in Gonzales, wherein we held that a panel of arbitrator is bereft of jurisdiction over the complaint for declaration of nullity/or termination of the subject contracts on the grounds of fraud and oppression attendant to the execution of the addendum contract and the other contracts emanating from it, and that the complaint should have been filed with the regular courts as it involved issues which are judicial in nature.

    Such argument is misplaced and respondent cannot rely on the Gonzales case to support its argument.

    In Gonzales, petitioner Gonzales filed a complaint before the Panel of Arbitrators, Region II, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) against respondents Climax- Mining Ltd, Climax-Arimco and Australasian Philippines Mining Inc, seeking the declaration of nullity or termination of the addendum contract and the other contracts emanating from it on the grounds of fraud and oppression. The Panel dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Panel, upon petitioner's motion for reconsideration, ruled that it had jurisdiction over the dispute maintaining that it was a mining dispute, since the subject complaint arose from a contract between the parties which involved the exploration and exploitation of minerals over the disputed area. Respondents assailed the order of the Panel of Arbitrators via a petition for certiorari before the CA.  The CA granted the petition and declared that the Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over the complaint, since its jurisdiction was limited to the resolution of mining disputes, such as those which raised a question of fact or matter requiring the technical knowledge and experience of mining authorities and not when the complaint alleged fraud and oppression which called for the interpretation and application of laws.  The CA further ruled that the petition should have been settled through arbitration under R.A.  No. 876 − the Arbitration Law − as provided under the addendum contract.

    On a review on certiorari, we affirmed the CA's finding that the Panel of Arbitrators who, under R.A. No. 7942 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, has exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide mining disputes, such as mining areas, mineral agreements, FTAAs or permits and surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires, is bereft of jurisdiction over the complaint for declaration of nullity of the addendum contract; thus, the Panels' jurisdiction is limited only to those mining disputes which raised question of facts or matters requiring the technical knowledge and experience of mining authorities.  We then said:

    In Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court observed that the trend has been to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter. Decisions of the Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinction between (1) the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (and the bureau directors) of an executive or administrative nature, such as granting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating or canceling applications, or deciding conflicting applications, and (2) controversies or disagreements of civil or contractual nature between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice. This distinction is carried on even in Rep. Act No. 7942.[28]

    We found that since the complaint filed before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators charged respondents with disregarding and ignoring the addendum contract, and acting in a fraudulent and oppressive manner against petitioner, the complaint filed before the Panel was not a dispute involving rights to mining areas, or was it a dispute involving claimholders or concessionaires, but essentially judicial issues.  We then said that the Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over such issue, since it does not involve the application of technical knowledge and expertise relating to mining.  It is in this context that we said that:

    Arbitration before the Panel of Arbitrators is proper only when there is a disagreement between the parties as to some provisions of the contract between them, which needs the interpretation and the application of that particular knowledge and expertise possessed by members of that Panel. It is not proper when one of the parties repudiates the existence or validity of such contract or agreement on the ground of fraud or oppression as in this case.  The validity of the contract cannot be subject of arbitration proceedings. Allegations of fraud and duress in the execution of a contract are matters within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law. These questions are legal in nature and require the application and interpretation of laws and jurisprudence which is necessarily a judicial function.[29]

    In fact, We even clarified in our resolution on Gonzales' motion for reconsideration that "when we declared that the case should not be brought for arbitration, it should be clarified that the case referred to is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of fraud, as it had already been determined that the case should have been brought before the regular courts involving as it did judicial issues." We made such clarification in our resolution of the motion for reconsideration after ruling that the parties in that case can proceed to arbitration under the Arbitration Law, as provided under the Arbitration Clause in their Addendum Contract.cralaw

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 31, 2006 and the Resolution dated November 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50304 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The parties are hereby ORDERED to SUBMIT themselves to the arbitration of their dispute, pursuant to their July 11, 1996 agreement.cralaw

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Nachura, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1]  Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-45.

    [2] Id. at 47-48.

    [3] Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1376; raffled off to Branch 59.

    [4] Rollo, pp. 61-70.

    [5] Id. at  60.

    [6]  Section 6. Hearing by court. - A party aggrieved by the failure, neglect or refusal of another to perform under an agreement in writing providing for arbitration may petition the court for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five days notice in writing of the hearing of such application shall be served either personally or by registered mail upon the party in default. The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement or such failure to comply therewith is not in issue, shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the making of the agreement or default be in issue the court shall proceed to summarily hear such issue. If the finding be that no agreement in writing providing for arbitration was made, or that there is no default in the proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the finding be that a written provision for arbitration was made and there is a default in proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.

    The court shall decide all motions, petitions or applications filed under the provisions of this Act, within ten days after such motions, petitions, or applications have been heard by it.

    [7] Sec. 7. Stay of civil action. - If any suit or proceeding be brought upon an issue arising out of an agreement providing for the arbitration thereof, the court in which such suit or proceeding is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration, shall say the action or proceeding until an arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement; Provided that the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.

    [8]  Penned by Judge Lucia Violago Isnani; rollo, pp. 71-75.

    [9] Id. at  75.

    [10] Records, pp. 113-115.

    [11] G.R. No. 161957, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 607.

    [12] Rollo, pp. 311-314.

    [13] G.R. Nos. 161957 & 167994, January 22, 1997, 512 SCRA 148, 163.

    [14] Id. at 165.

    [15] G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78, 91.

    [16] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 13, at 166.

    [17] An Act to Institutionalize the Use of An Alternative Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines and to Establish the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and for other purposes.

    [18] Gonzeles v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 13.

    [19] Id. at 167.

    [20] Id.

    [21]    Id., citing Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., 57 Phil 600 (1932).

    [22] Id. at 167-168.

    [23] Id., citing Del Monte Corporation -USA v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 192 (2001).

    [24] Rollo, pp. 44-45. (Emphasis supplied.)

    [25] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 11.

    [26] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 13, at  172-173. (Emphasis supplied.)

    [27] Id. at 170.

    [28] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 11, at  620.

    [29] Id. at  624.

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 188847 : January 31, 2011]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO VICENTE, JR. Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

    D E C I S I O N


    VELASCO JR., J.:


    This is an appeal from the April 30, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02699 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rufino Vicente, Jr. y Cruz, which affirmed the September 7, 2006 Decision in Criminal Case No. 12474-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 151 in Pasig City.  The RTC found accused Rufino Vicente, Jr. (Vicente, Jr.) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002.cralaw

    The Facts

    An Information[1] charged Vicente, Jr. as follows:

    That, on or about the 31st day of May 2003, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.40 grams of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Php500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.cralaw


    During his arraignment, Vicente, Jr. gave a negative plea.

    Version of the Prosecution

    At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Officer 2 (PO2) Darwin M. Boiser and PO2 Gerald Marion R. Lagos, who were both part of the buy-bust team that apprehended Vicente, Jr.

    PO2 Boiser and PO2 Lagos testified as to the following events that allegedly transpired:

    On May 31, 2003, at around 8:00 in the evening, an informant arrived at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs at the Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila.  The informant reported that a certain "Paks" was pushing shabu on P. Mariano St., Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila.[2]

    Acting on the information from the informant, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Rodolfo Anicoche ordered PO2 Boiser to verify the drug-peddling activities of "Paks."[3]

    PO2 Boiser proceeded to Ususan accompanied by the informant.  Once there, the informant pointed "Paks" to PO2 Boiser.  They were at a distance of 10 meters when they both saw "Paks" peddling drugs to several persons.  After confirming the informant's report, they went back to the police station to recount what they had seen to P/Insp. Anicoche.  Thereafter, a team was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation.  The buy-bust team was composed of P/Insp. Anicoche, PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos, PO3 Macario, and Senior Police Officer 2 Millari. PO2 Boiser was designated as the poseur-buyer. [4]

    The buy-bust team conducted a briefing where PO2 Boiser marked a PhP 500 bill with "JG," the initials of Police Superintendent and District Intelligence and Investigation Branch Chief Jose Gentiles.  Afterwards, they boarded a vehicle and headed to Ususan, Taguig, arriving at the area around midnight.  PO2 Boiser and PO2 Lagos walked with the informant to meet "Paks."  PO2 Boiser was then introduced to "Paks" as a balikbayan who wanted to score some drugs.  He also told "Paks" that he had been released from rehab and wanted to use again.   "Paks," satisfied that PO2 Boiser was indeed a drug user, agreed to sell PhP 500 worth of shabu.  He reached from his camouflage shorts a plastic sachet and handed it to PO2 Boiser.[5]

    After receiving the plastic sachet from "Paks," PO2 Boiser examined it under the light of a lamppost.  Seeing the pre-arranged signal acted out by PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos went to the scene and introduced himself as a police officer to "Paks."

    The buy-bust money was then seized from "Paks." "Paks" quietly stood while he was informed of his drug violation as well as his constitutional rights.  The plastic sachet sold by "Paks" was later turned over by PO2 Boiser to investigating officer PO3 Delima, who prepared the laboratory request. The plastic sachet was marked "DB-1-3105-03," pertaining to PO2 Boiser's initials and the date of the seizure of the drug.[6] The following  pieces of documentary evidence were also presented:cralaw

    (1)     Exhibit "A" - Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated June 2, 2003 by PO2 Gerald Marion R. Lagos and PO2 Darwin M. Boiser;[7]

    (2)     Exhibit "B" - Request for Laboratory Examination dated May 31, 2003 by Police Superintendent Jose L. Gentiles, Officer-in-Charge, District Intelligence and Investigation Branch, delivered by PO2 Lagos and received by PO2 Imus;[8] and

    (3)     Exhibit "D" - Physical Science Report No. D-616-03S prepared by Forensic Chemical Officer Richard Allan B. Mangalip.[9]

    Version of the Defense

    The defense offered the testimonies of Vicente, Jr. and Elisa Santos.

    According to Elisa, she was outside her house having a conversation with Vicente, Jr. around midnight of May 31, 2003.  They both noticed a gray vehicle drive past them.  Shortly thereafter, a tricycle stopped in front of them.  Three men alighted and poked a gun at Vicente, Jr., and warned him, "Reden, wag kang kikilos ng masama."  Vicente, Jr. denied he was Reden.  Yet the three men took him away and hit him with a gun and boxed him in his abdomen. Elisa further testified, "Tinuhod po yung harapan niya."  Vicente, Jr. attempted to show identification to the three men but they ignored him.  The gray vehicle earlier spotted by Elisa and Vicente, Jr. then returned and a person inside said, "Hindi iyan."  However, someone replied "Sinaktan niyo na siya, isama na natin."[10]

    On the witness stand, Vicente, Jr. said that he had never been involved in any drug-related case prior to his arrest.  He explained that he was buying balut from witness Elisa when three men accosted him and poked a gun at him.  They mistakenly thought he was "Reden" and beat him up when he said it was a case of mistaken identity.  The men turned out to be police officers and he was brought to their office where one of them told him, "Kung gusto mo magturo ka na lang ng ibang tao."  When he did not cooperate, he was again beaten up.  Vicente, Jr. further testified that his wife and brother were not allowed to visit him.  He claimed that he did not get a medical certificate for his injuries for that reason.  PO2 Lagos even warned him not to say anything during the inquest proceedings and to tell the prosecutor that he would just make his statement in court.[11]cralaw

    The Ruling of the RTC

    On September 7, 2006, the RTC pronounced Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. The RTC stated that the witnesses for the prosecution gave straightforward testimonies that clearly established the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs.

    The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision[12] reads:

    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, RUFINO VICENTE, JR., Y CRUZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of RA 9165 as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.cralaw


    The Ruling of the CA

    On appeal, Vicente, Jr. averred that the trial court erred (1) in convicting him as the alleged seller of shabu since he was not the alleged "Paks" identified by the police informant as the peddler of shabu; (2) in convicting him based on the weakness of the defense and not on the strength of the prosecution's evidence; and (3) in finding that the arresting police officers regularly performed their duties despite non-compliance with procedural rules on drug buy-bust operations.

    Representing the People, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that all the elements in the illegal sale of drugs were established.  Vicente, Jr.'s identity as the seller of shabu was established by the credible testimonies of PO2 Boiser and PO2 Lagos.

    The CA affirmed the findings of the trial court, viz:

    The said elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) was clearly established by the testimony of PO2 Boiser who acted as the poseur-buyer in the standard police buy-bust operation. PO2 Boiser was able to chronologically and consistently narrate the factual circumstances that led to the arrest of the accused-appellant.

    Moreso, PO2 Boiser's testimony was corroborated on material points by PO2 Lagos who was just more or less ten (10) meters from the locus criminis and who helped PO2 Boiser in effecting the arrest of the accused-appellant.[13]


    On May 26, 2009, Vicente, Jr. filed his Notice of Appeal from the appellate court's Decision.

    On October 5, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The People, through the OSG, manifested that it was adopting its previous arguments. Vicente, Jr. filed his Supplemental Brief on January 18, 2010.  He averred that there was a failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug by the arresting officers.cralaw

    The Issue

    Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt


    The Ruling of this Court

    Vicente, Jr. is convinced that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 was not complied with, since the buy-bust team failed to present a pre-operation report and photographs of the seized items.  He concludes that there is uncertainty as to the identity of the illegal drugs seized.  He says that due to the buy-bust team's omissions, there is a lingering doubt as to whether the drugs that underwent laboratory examination were the same items allegedly seized from him.

    The OSG, on the other hand, argues that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were properly preserved by the buy-bust team from the time it was handed by Vicente, Jr. to the poseur-buyer up to the time it was presented during trial. The OSG adds that prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was not required as the buy-bust was conducted on March 31, 2003, while the IRR of RA 9165 took effect only on November 27, 2004.

    We affirm accused's conviction.

    As previously held by this Court, Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science.  Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[14]  Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[15] We have thus emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[16]

    People v. Sultan[17] explains further:

    In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 adequately reflects the desire of the law to excuse from the rigid tenor of Section 21 situations wherein slight infractions in methodology are present but the integrity and identity of the specimen remains intact.


    The following exchange took place during the direct examination of  PO2 Boiser and shows the handling of the seized drug:

    PROSECUTOR DULDULAO

    Q:        After the recovery of the buy-bust money from alias Paks, what else did you do?

    A:        I informed him of his violation and apprised him his constitutional rights.

    Q:        What violation did you inform him [about]?

    A:        That he violated [a law by] selling shabu, sir.

    Q:        What was his answer if any?

    A:        He kept silent, sir.

    Q:        How about the rights you informed him? What are those rights?

    A:        He has the right to remain silent and he has the right to get his own counsel.

    x x x x

    Q:        After that, what else did you do?

    A:        We brought Paks to our office, sir.

    Q:        How about the specimen or the shabu which you were able to buy from alias Paks? What did you do to it if any?

    A:        I turned it over to the investigator and he prepared a crime lab request.

    Q:        If shown to you again, Mr. Witness, that plastic sachet containing shabu which according to you you were able to buy from alias Paks, would you be able to identify it and how can you identify it?

    A:        I place a marking, sir.

    Q:        What marking did you place?

    A:        I placed the initial of my name and the date of arrest.

    Q:        What initial did you put?

    A:        DB, sir.

    Q:        DB meaning the initial refers to?

    A:        My name, sir. Darwin Boiser.

    Q:        I am showing to you, Mr. Witness, a heat transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was found positive to the test of shabu previously marked as Exh. C. Will you please go over this and tell us if this is the same specimen [which] you were able to buy from alias Paks at the time of the buy-bust operation?

    A:        Yes, sir. It is the same.

    Q:        Why do you say so?

    A:        Because it bears the marking which I placed, sir.

    Q:        Again, what marking are you referring to?

    A:        DB-1-310503, sir.

    INTERPRETER

    Witness is referring to the initial appearing in Exh. C.

    PROSECUTOR DULDULAO:

    Q:        When you put the marking on this evidence, what happened next?

    A:        We brought Paks to the office, sir.

    Q:        When you were already at the office, what happened thereat?

    A:        I turned him over to the investigator.

    Q:        You are referring to alias Paks?

    A:        Yes, sir.

    Q:        How about the evidence?

    A:        I also gave it, sir.

    Q:        Who was your investigator then?

    A:        PO3 Delima, sir.

    Q:        What did Delima do after turning over to him the person of alias Paks and the evidence?

    A:        He prepared the crime lab request.

    Q:        Request for what?

    A:        For laboratory examination.

    Q:        What was the subject of the examination?

    A:        The shabu which we bought from Paks.

    Q:        What happened to the request?

    A:        There was a result, sir.

    Q:        What was the result?

    A:        It [was] found positive [for] methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

    Q:        How about alias Paks? Did you come to know his full name?

    A:        Yes, sir.

    Q:        How did you come to know it?

    A:        When I asked him to sign the booking sheet, sir.

    Q:        What was his name?

    A:        Rufino Vicente, sir.

    Q:        The accused in this case?

    A:        Yes, sir.

    Q:        If you will see him again, would you be able to identify him?

    A:        Yes, sir.

    Q:        Will you please point to him if he is inside the courtroom?

    A:        He is there seated in front wearing a yellow t-shirt, sir.

    INTERPRETER:

    Witness is pointing to a person inside the courtroom whom upon being asked answered by the name of Rufino Vicente, Jr.[18]


    Additionally, any doubts as to the chain of custody requirement were clarified during the cross-examination of PO2 Boiser:

    ATTY. RONATAY

    Q:        Where did you place the marking of the specimen, at the place where the accused was arrested or at the police station when there was already an investigation?

    A:        At the place where the accused was arrested, ma'am.[19]


    We affirm the trial court's finding that PO2 Boiser's testimony was credible and straightforward.  As the trial court explained:

    The prosecution showed that there was a meeting of the minds between the witness Boiser, poseur-buyer and the seller, accused Rufino Vicente, Jr., to sell to the former shabu for Php500.00. The act of the accused-seller in receiving the money and delivering the said shabu consummated the sale. The straightforward testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution clearly established the elements.[20]


    Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[21]  Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[22]  Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their testimonies.[23]

    The cross-examination of Vicente, Jr. sheds light on the matter of ill motive:

    Fiscal Glenn Santos

    Q         Mr. witness, but prior to this incident do you know these police officers Boiser, Lagos and Millari?

    A         No sir.

    Q         So it [is] safe to assume that you do not have any misunderstanding or misgiving with these police officers, Mr. witness?

    A         None, sir.

    Q          During the incident you said that you were with the "balut" vendor?

    A         [Y]es, sir.

    Q         But the "balut" vendor [was] never [harmed] nor arrested by these police officers?

    A         No sir.

    Q         And just like you, you claimed that you [did] not commit anything this "balut" vendor did not commit any crime?

    A         None, sir.

    Q         But despite that you were [singled] out by these police officers in arresting and mauling you?

    A         Yes, sir.

    Q         Would you know of any reason why these police officers would hurt you for no apparent reason or arrest or [charge] you for selling shabu?

    A         None, sir.[24]


    No clear and convincing evidence exists in the records to show that Vicente, Jr.'s arresting officers were impelled by malicious or ill motives in bringing up trumped-up charges against him.

    Moreover, We take notice of Vicente, Jr.'s belated objection to the alleged lapses committed by the buy-bust team.  People v. Sta. Maria[25] does not support this move:

    The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.


    The OSG, however, is incorrect in arguing that the buy-bust was conducted on March 31, 2003, while the IRR of RA 9165 took effect only on November 27, 2004.  The IRR of RA 9165 was approved on August 30, 2002, and it became effective upon its publication in three newspapers of general circulation and registration with the Office of the National Administrative Register.  It was published in the national newspaper Today on October 31, 2002 or before the buy-bust against Vicente, Jr. occurred.  Thus, the IRR of RA 9165 is applicable to the case of Vicente, Jr.  Yet, regardless of this argument on the effectivity of said IRR, Vicente, Jr. still cannot count on his acquittal.  Even with the effectivity of the IRR during his arrest, We hold that the chain of custody of the seized item was not broken in this case.  We are not convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were compromised.cralaw

    Alibi as a Defense

    As Vicente, Jr.'s final argument, he reiterates that the case against him was all a frame-up.  We find his excuse all too common and poorly argued.

    As the trial court noted:

    x x x [T]he accused failed to secure a medical report to support his claim alleging that his relatives were prevented from going near him. Such excuse deserves scant consideration. Also, his silence during the inquest proceeding because a policeman simply advised him to is highly suspect. Finally his claim that he did not file any action against the policemen who mauled him because of his fear for his life and that of his family is questionable.[26]


    Vicente, Jr.'s testimony was, thus, labeled by the CA as "simply not corroborated by credible and convincing evidence," a requirement for the defense of frame-up to gain merit in court.cralaw

    Penalty Imposed

    Vicente, Jr. was sentenced to life imprisonment and the payment of a PhP 500,000 fine.  This is within the range provided in RA 9165 for the crime of illegal sale of drugs:

    SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.¾The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.


    We, thus, affirm the findings of the appellate court.cralaw

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.  The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02699 finding accused-appellant Vicente, Jr. guilty of the violation charged is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Mendoza,* and Perez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    * Additional member as per raffle dated January 26, 2011.

    [1]  CA rollo, p. 47.

    [2]  Id. at 48.

    [3]  Id.

    [4] Id. The records do not divulge the complete names of PO3 Macario and SPO2 Millari.

    [5] Id.

    [6] Id. at 48-49.

    [7] Records, p. 103.

    [8] Id. at 105.

    [9] Id. at 107.

    [10] Id. at 168.

    [11] CA rollo, p. 50.

    [12] Id. at 51.  Penned by Judge Franchito N. Diamante.

    [13] Rollo, p. 10.  The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.

    [14] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.

    [15] People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325.

    [16] Id.

    [17] G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010.

    [18] TSN, January 20, 2004, pp. 18-22.

    [19] TSN, April 26, 2004, pp. 6-7.

    [20] CA rollo, p. 50.

    [21] People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010, 612 SCRA 91,106.

    [22] People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.

    [23] People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 668, 678.

    [24] TSN, September 12, 2005, pp. 15-16.

    [25] G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633-634.

    [26] CA rollo, p. 50.

    cralaw > cralaw
    y>

    [G.R. No. 175404 : January 31, 2011]   CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC., RESPONDENT.


    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