ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 131276.� August 2, 2005]
PEZA vs. GMC
EN BANC
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 2 2005.
G. R. No. 131276 (PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and CITY TRUST BANKING CORPORATION.) and
G.R. No. 131684 (PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION.)
For our resolution is petitioner's joint urgent motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated April 13, 2005 denying the two above-entitled consolidated petitions for review on certiorari and affirming the assailed Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated October 13, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42151 (subject matter in G.R. No. 131276) and its Decision [2] cralaw dated November 28, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42150 (subject matter in G.R. No. 131684).
To recapitulate, the facts in both cases are:
I
G.R. No. 131276
(formerly Civil Case No. 3007-L, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 54, Lapu-lapu City)
On November 26, 1993, the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), now Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City, a complaint for eminent domain against General Milling Corporation (GMC) and City Trust Banking Corporation (CTBC), docketed as Civil Case No. 3007-L. In its complaint, EPZA seeks the expropriation of GMC's parcel of land located in Mactan, Cebu, held in trust by CTBC, to be used as an Economic Zone.
On February 24, 1995, Republic Act No. 7915 was enacted abolishing the EPZA and creating the PEZA in its stead.
GMC and CTBC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that PEZA has no authority to file a complaint for eminent domain. In an Order dated May 15, 1996, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. A copy of the Order was received by PEZA on May 22, 1996.
On June 3, 1996, PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of dismissal.
On June 17, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying PEZA's motion for reconsideration. A copy of this Order was received by PEZA on June 26, 1996.
On July 5, 1996, PEZA, through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), filed with the trial court its Notice of Appeal. In an Order dated July 29, 1996, the trial court denied due course to the appeal, holding that the Notice of Appeal was filed six (6) days late.
PEZA then filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42151. In its petition, PEZA admitted the late filing of its Notice of Appeal, blaming the OGCC for such lapse. PEZA vigorously maintained that it should not be prejudiced by the gross negligence of its counsel.
On October 13, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus, holding that "the instant petition for certiorari can never be a substitute for a lost appeal."
G.R. No. 131684
(formerly Civil Case No. 490-L, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City)
On September 17, 1980, EPZA filed with the RTC, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City, a complaint for eminent domain against GMC, docketed as Civil Case No. 490-L. The complaint alleges in part that EPZA has the authority to expropriate the lot owned by GMC to be utilized as Export Processing Zone, after payment of just compensation. This is pursuant to the Charter of EPZA under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended.
On September 19, 1980, the trial court issued an Order granting EPZA's prayer for a writ of possession.
On June 15, 1981, the trial court issued an Order of Condemnation in favor of EPZA, subject to its payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.
On June 25, 1990, GMC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that EPZA has no actual need of the subject lot considering that since 1980, it has not developed the same. On April 30, 1991, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion and dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L without prejudice.
EPZA timely submitted a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the trial court in its Order dated November 15, 1991.
On December 11, 1995, GMC again filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 490-L on the ground that EPZA has not taken any action to prosecute its claim; and that it ceased to exist by virtue of the passage of Republic Act No. 7915 creating the PEZA.
On April 22, 1996, the trial court issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L for the second time. A copy of this Order was received by counsel for PEZA on April 29, 1996.
On May 16, 1996, PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the trial court in its Order of September 6, 1996 for having been filed two (2) days late.
On October 4, 1996, PEZA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42150.
On November 28, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the assailed Order dated April 22, 1996 had become final and executory and PEZA's motion for its reconsideration, being two (2) days late, was correctly denied by the trial court.
Thus, PEZA elevated the matter to us via the present consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.
II
In our resolution dated April 13, 2005, we ruled that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in holding that: (1) the trial court correctly denied due course to PEZA's Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L for having been filed late by six (6) days; and (2) the trial court correctly denied PEZA's motion for reconsideration of the trial court's Order dated April 22, 1996 (dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L) for having been filed two (2) days late.
In the meantime, considering that both complaints have been
dismissed, GMC filed with the RTC, Branch 54 a motion praying that PEZA be
ordered to vacate Lot 4700 and pay P300,000.00 as monthly rental for the
period from December, 1993 until such time that it (GMC) shall have actual
possession of said lot.
Acting on the motion, Branch 54 issued a writ of execution.
Thereupon, PEZA filed a joint urgent motion for reconsideration praying for the lifting of the notice of garnishment and for the issuance of a restraining order. PEZA contends that the "gross negligence of its former counsel should not have been binding on it for its amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law." Moreover, "PEZA is facing: (a) in Civil Case No. 30007-L, a notice of garnishment in the amount of Php300,000.00 monthly from December 1993 until 'restitution;' (b) in Civil Case No. 490-L, a notice of garnishment in the mind-boggling amount of Php2,222,361,515.16." PEZA further contends that:
"5. On July 4, 2005, the sheriff of Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City issued a notice garnishment to the Manager/Cashier of Landbank of Lapu-Lapu City in PEZA. (The notice of garnishment is attached hereto as Annex 2). The notice of garnishment cites the following paragraphs of the Order dated July 10, 1997 of Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City:
'WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court grants the motion of defendants GMC and hereby:
a) Directs the plaintiff, its agents, representative and lessees or whoever is in possession of Lot 4700 on behalf of plaintiff, to deliver and restore the possession thereof to defendant;
b) Condemns the plaintiff to pay monthly rentals of P300,000.00
for the use and enjoyment of the property from December 1993 up to the time of
defendant's actual possession of such property.'
6. The notice of garnishment is anchored on the writ of execution issued by the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court on November 24, 1997. (A copy of the writ of execution issued on November 24, 1997 is attached hereto as Annex 3).
7. On July 8, 2005, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PEZA, filed two (2) complaints for expropriation. (Please see Annexes E and F of urgent manifestation and motion for leave to file urgent motion: (a) for reconsideration; (b) for lifting of notice of garnishment issued by Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City; and (c) for issuance of a restraining order). One of these complaints refers specifically to the lot subject of Civil Case No. 3007-L which is Lot No. 4700.
8. The filing of the complaints for expropriation [3] cralaw by the Republic of the Philippines constitutes a supervening event that renders the judgment for the restitution of the property to respondent and payment of rentals moot and academic. For the expropriation of property for public use, what is to be paid is not rental for the use but the just compensation for the taking of the property. The property subject of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment is now being used for an indisputably public purpose. Therefore, the relief for the owner is not for the restitution of the property but payment to said owner of the just compensation, which must be reckoned from the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation or from the time of the taking of the property, whichever is earlier." [4] cralaw
There is merit in the above motion.
To be sure, as a general rule, the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client, [5] cralaw for otherwise there would never be an end to a suit as long as a new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the former counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned. [6] cralaw But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it. What should guide the judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merit of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities. [7] cralaw
In Ginete vs. Court of Appeals, [8] cralaw we specifically laid down the range of reasons which may provide justifications for a court to resist a strict adherence to procedure and suspend the enforcement of procedural rules. Among such reasons which are present in the case at bar are: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (2) counsel's negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of the client; (3) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (4) the merits of the case; (5) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; and (6) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.
We agree with PEZA that is former counsel (OGCC) was grossly negligent by failing to file on time the notice of appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L, as well as the motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 490-L. Such gross negligence of PEZA's former counsel should be weighed against the utmost importance of the expropriation cases for the establishment of the Economic Zone; and the possible serious adverse consequences to the economy of the country for it may lose the lots involved and pay respondents monthly rental of P300,000.00 from December, 1993 until such time that they take possession thereof. Thus, we rule that in the paramount interest of justice, PEZA is not bound by the gross negligence of OGCC.
WHEREFORE, the instant joint urgent motion for reconsideration filed by PEZA is GRANTED and our Resolution dated April 13, 2005 is RECONSIDERED. The two complaints for eminent domain in Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L are REINSTATED. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is hereby issued directing the Regional Trial Court, Branches 27 and 54, Lapu-Lapu City, to enjoin Sheriff Basilio M. Pimentel from implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3007-L, specifically from garnishing PEZA's funds in the Land Bank of the Philippines, Lapu-Lapu City.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and CITY TRUST BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, respondent.
TO:����� Hon. Leopoldo V. Ca�ete (rush)
Regional Trial Court Branch 27
Lapu-Lapu City
Hon. Rumoldo R. Fernandez (rush)
Regional Trial Court Branch 54
Lapu-Lapu City
Sheriff Basilio M. Pimentel (rush)
Regional Trial Court
Lapu-Lapu City
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, on 2 August 2005, adopted a resolution in the above-entitled case, to wit:
G.R. No. 131276 - PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, versus GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and CITY TRUST BANKING CORPORATION, respondents; and
G.R. No. 131684 - PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, versus GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, respondent.
For our resolution is petitioner's joint urgent motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated April 13, 2005 denying the two above-entitled consolidated petitions for review on certiorari and affirming the assailed Decision1of the Court of Appeals dated October 13, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42151 (subject matter in G.R. No. 131276) and its Decision2 dated November 28, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42150 (subject matter in G.R. No. 131684).
To recapitulate , the facts in both cases are:
I
G.R. No. 131276
(formerly Civil Case No. 3007-L,Regional Trial Court,
Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City)
On November 26, 1993, the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), now Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City, a complaint for eminent domain against General Milling Corporation (GMC) and City Trust Banking Corporation (CTBC), docketed as Civil Case No. 3007-L. In its complaint, EPZA seeks the expropriation of GMC's parcel of land located in Mactan, Cebu, held in trust by CTBC, to be used as an Economic Zone.
On February 24, 1995, Republic Act No. 7915 was enacted abolishing the EPZA and creating the PEZA in its stead.
GMC and CTBC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that PEZA has no authority to file a complaint for eminent domain. In an Order dated May 15,1996, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. A copy of the Order was received by PEZA on May 22, 1996.
On June 3, 1996, PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of dismissal.
On June17, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying PEZA's motion for reconsideration. A copy of this Order was received by PEZA on June 26, 1996.
On July 5, 1996, PEZA, through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), filed with the trial court its Notice of Appeal. In an Order dated July 29, 1996, the trial court denied due course to the appeal, holding that the Notice of Appeal was filed six (6) days late.
PEZA then filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42151. In its petition, PEZA admitted the late filing of its Notice of Appeal, blaming the OGCC for such lapse. PEZA vigorously maintained that it should not be prejudiced by the gross negligence of its counsel.
On October 13, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus, holding that "the instant petition for certiorari can never be a substitute for a lost appeal."
G.R. No. 131684
(formerly Civil Case No. 490-L, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City)
On September 17, 1980, EPZA filed with the RTC, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City, a complaint for eminent domain against GMC, docketed as Civil Case No. 490-L. The complaint alleges in part that EPZA has the authority to expropriate the lot owned by GMC to be utilized as Export Processing Zone, after payment of just compensation. This is pursuant to the Charter of EPZA under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended.
On September 19, 1980, the trial court issued an Order granting EPZA's prayer for a writ of possession.
On June 15, 1981, the trial court issued an Order of Condemnation in favor of EPZA, subject to its payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.
On June 25,1990, GMC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that EPZA has no actual need of the subject lot considering that since 1980, it has not developed the same. On April 30, 1991, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion and dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L without prejudice.
EPZA timely submitted a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the trial court in its Order dated November 15, 1991.
On December 11, 1995, GMC again filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 490-L on the ground that EPZA has not taken any action to prosecute its claim; and that it ceased to exist by virtue of the passage of Republic Act No. 7915 creating the PEZA.
On April 22, 1996, the trial court issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L for the second time. A copy of this Order was received by counsel for PEZA on April 29, 1996.
On May 16, 1996, PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the trial court in its Order of September 6, 1996 for having been filed two (2) days late.
On October 4, 1996, PEZA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42150.
On November 28, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the assailed Order dated April 22, 1996had become final and executory and PEZA's motion for its reconsideration, being two (2) days late, was correctly denied by the trial court.
Thus, PEZA elevated the matter to us via the present consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.
II
In our Resolution dated April 13, 2005, we ruled that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in holding that: (1) the trial court correctly denied due course to PEZA's Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L for having been filed late by six (6) days; and (2) the trial court correctly denied PEZA's motion for reconsideration of the trial court's Order dated April 22, 1996 (dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L) for having been filed two (2) days late.
In the meantime, considering that both complaints have been
dismissed. GMC filed with the RTC, Branch 54 a motion praying that PEZA be
ordered to vacate Lot 4700 and pay P300,000.00 as monthly rental for the
period from December, 1993 until such time that it (GMC) shall have actual
possession of said lot.
Acting on the motion, Branch 54 issued a writ of execution.
Thereupon, PEZA filed a joint urgent motion for reconsideration praying for the lifting of the notice of garnishment and for the issuance of a restraining order. PEZA contends that the "gross negligence of its former counsel should not have been binding on it for it amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law." Moreover, "PEZA is facing: (a) in Civil Case No. 30007-L, a notice of garnishment in the amount of Php 300, 000.00 monthly from December 1993 until 'restitution;' (b) in Civil Case No. 490-L, a notice of garnishment in the mind-boggling amount of Php2,222,361,515.16." PEZA further contends that:
"5. On July 4, 2005, the sheriff of Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City issued a notice garnishment to the Manager/Cashier of Landbank of Lapu-Lapu City in PEZA. (The notice of garnishment is attached hereto as Annex 2). The notice of garnishment cites the following paragraphs of the Order dated July 10, 1997 of Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City:
'WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court grants the motion of defendants GMC and hereby:
a) Directs the plaintiff, its agents, representative and lessees or whoever is in possession of Lot 4700 on behalf of plaintiff, to deliver and restore the possession thereof to defendant;
b) Condemns the plaintiff to pay monthly rentals of P300,000.00
for the use and enjoyment of the property from December 1993 up to the time of
defendant's actual possession of such property.'
6. The notice of garnishment is anchored on the writ of execution issued by the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court on November 24, 1997. (A copy of the writ of execution issued on November 24, 1997 is attached hereto as Annex 3).
7. On July 8, 2005, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PEZA, filed two (2) complaints for expropriation. (Please see Annexes E and F of urgent manifestation and motion for leave to file urgent motion: (a) for reconsideration; (b) for lifting of notice of garnishment issued by Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City; and (c) for issuance of a restraining order). One of these complaints refers specifically to the lot subject of Civil Case No. 3007-L which is Lot No. 4700.
8. The filing of the complaints for expropriation 3 by the Republic of the Philippines constitutes a supervening event that renders the judgment for the restitution of the property to respondent and payment of rentals moot and academic. For the expropriation of property for public use, what is to be paid is not rental for the use but the just compensation for the taking of the property. The property subject of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment is now being used for an indisputably public purpose. Therefore, the relief for the owner is not for the restitution of the property but payment to said owner of the just compensation, which must be reckoned from the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation or from the time of the taking of the property, whichever is earlier." 4
There is merit in the above motion.
To be sure, as a general rule, the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client,5 for otherwise there would never be an end to a suit as long as a new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the former counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.6 But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it. What should guide the judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merit of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.7
In Ginete vs. Court of Appeals, 8 we specifically laid down the range of reasons which may provide justifications for a court to resist a strict adherence to procedure and suspend the enforcement of procedural rules. Among such reasons which are present in the case at bar are: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (2) counsel's negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of the client; (3) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (4) the merits of the case; (5) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; and (6) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.
We agree with PEZA that is former counsel (OGCC) was grossly negligent by failing to file on time the notice of appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L, as well as the motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 490-L. Such gross negligence of PEZA's former counsel should be weighed against the utmost importance of the expropriation cases for the establishment of the Economic Zone; and the possible serious adverse consequences to the economy of the country for it may lose the lots involved and pay respondents monthly rental of P300,000.00 from December, 1993 until such time that they take possession thereof. Thus, we rule that in the paramount interest of justice, PEZA is not bound by the gross negligence of OGCC.
WHEREFORE, the instant joint urgent motion for reconsideration filed by PEZA is GRANTED and our Resolution dated April 13, 2005 is RECONSIDERED. The two complaints for eminent domain in Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L are REINSTATED. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is hereby issued directing the Regional Trial Court, Branches 27 and 54, Lapu-Lapu City, to enjoin Sheriff Basilio M. Pimentel from implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3007-L, specifically from garnishing PEZA's funds in the Land Bank of the Philippines, Lapu-Lapu City.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court,You, Judge Leopoldo V. Ca�ete, RTC, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City, Judge Rumoldo R. Fernandez, RTC, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City, Sheriff Basilio M. Pimentel, RTC, Lapu-Lapu City, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3007-L, specifically from garnishing PEZA's funds in the Land Bank of the Philippines, Lapu-Lapu City.
GIVEN by the Hon. HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 2nd day of August 2005.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros (retired) and concurred in by Justice Gloria C. Paras (deceased) and Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
[2] cralaw Penned by Justice B.A. Adelfuin-Dela Cruz (retired) and concurred in by then Presiding Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Justice Roberto A. Barrios.
[3] cralaw These are new complaints reiterating the allegations in Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L.
[4] cralaw Rollo at 241-243.
[5] cralaw Barangay 24 of Legazpi City vs. Imperial, G.R. No. 140321, 24 August 2000, 338 SCRA 694; Biglang-awa vs. Judge Bacalla, G.R. No. 139927 & 139936, 22 November 2000, 345 SCRA 562; Sapad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132153, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 304; Amil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125272, October 7, 1999, 316 SCRA 317, citing Tesoro vs. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 296 (1973).
[6] cralaw Gacutana-Fraile vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 138518, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 414.
[7] cralaw Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 371, 374-375 (1995); Apex Mining, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 456, 468 (1999).
[8] cralaw 296 SCRA 38 (1998), cited in Baylon vs. Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 150870, December 11, 2002. 394 SCRA 21.
1 Penned by Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros (retired) and concurred in by Justice Gloria C. Paras (deceased) and Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
2 Penned by Justice B.A. Adelfuin-De la Cruz (retired) and concurred in by then Presiding Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Justice Roberto A. Barrios.
3 These are new complaints reiterating the allegations in Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L.
4 Rollo at 241-243.
5 Barangay 24 of Legazpi City vs. Imperial, G.R. No. 140321, 24 August 2000, 338 SCRA 694; Biglang-awa vs. Judge Bacalla, G.R. No. 139927 & 139936, 22 November 2000, 345 SCRA 562; Sapad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132153, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 304; Amil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125272, October 7, 1999, 316 SCRA 317, citing Tesoro vs. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 296 (1973).
6 Gacutana-Fraile vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 138518, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 414.
7 Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 371, 374-375 (1995); Apex Mining, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 456, 468 (1999).
8 296 SCRA 38 (1998), cited in Baylon vs. Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 150870, December 11, 2002. 394 SCRA 21.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
