Juristz

Fairland Knitcraft Corporation Vs. Arturo Loo Po G.R. No. 217694. January 27, 2016 1.     FAIRLAND filed an unlawful detainer case against ARTURO for the latter’s failure to pay rental fee of P20,000 a month based on verbal agreement. Hence, FAIRLAND demanded payment of P220,000 representing rental arrears. ARTURO, however, failed to file his answer on time. And rather filed Entry of Appearance with Motion for Leave of Court to file Comment/Opposition to Motion to Render Judgment. In the attached Comment/Opposition, ARTURO denied the allegations against him and commented that FAIRLAND failed to prove by preponderance of evidence its allegations. MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit due to Fairland’s failure to prove its claim by preponderance of evidence. Was the decision of the trial court proper? No. Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the weight of evidence is not considered when a judgment is rendered based on the complaint...

Spouses Herminio and Editha Erorita Vs. Spouses Antonio and Ligaya Dumlao G.R. No. 195477. January 25, 2016 On March 4, 2004, the Spouses DUMLAO filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the defendants Hernan, Susan, and the Spouses Erorita. On June 4, 2007, the RTC decided in the Spouses Dumlao’s favor. On Appeal, ERORITA argued that the complaint patently shows a case for unlawful detainer. Thus, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case 1.     Which court has jurisdiction over the case? MTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the complaint. Thus, although the complaint bears the caption "recovery of possession," its allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer case. Under RA 7691, an action for unlawful detainer is within the MTC’s exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the property’s assessed value. 2. ...

Mary Lou Geturbos Torres Vs. Corazon Alma G. De Leon G.R. No. 199440. January 18, 2016 DE LEON charged MARY LOU with Grave Misconduct for violating PNRC Financial Policies on Oversubscription, Remittances and Disbursement of Funds and imposed upon petitioner the penalties of one month suspension and transfer to the National Headquarters. Upon the petitioner’s administrative appeal, the CSC promulgated a Resolution imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. The petitioner argued that PNRC is not a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), thus, the CSC has no jurisdiction or authority to review the appeal that she herself filed. Is the petitioner’s contention correct? No. The sui generis character of PNRC requires us to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis. In the case, the issue at hand is the enforcement of labor laws and penal statutes, thus, the PNRC can be treat...

Natividad C. Cruz and Benjamin Dela Cruz Vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc. G.R. No. 188213. January 11, 2016 Petitioner Natividad C. Cruz   (Cruz)   was   Punong Barangay   or Chairperson of Barangay 848, Zone 92, City of Manila. 2   On November 10, 2006, around five o'clock in the afternoon, and along Central Street, Pandacan, Manila, within the vicinity of her barangay, she allegedly confronted persons playing basketball with the following statements: Bakit nakabukas ang (basketball) court? Wala kayong karapatang maglaro sa court na 'to, barangay namin ito! xxx xxx xxx Wala kayong magagawa. Ako ang chairman dito. Mga walanghiya kayo, patay gutom! Hindi ako natatakot! Kaya kong panagutan lahat! Then, she allegedly gave an order to the other petitioner,   Barangay Tanod   Benjamin dela Cruz ( Dela Cruz ), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw which Dela Cruz promptly complied with, thus, rendering the said basket...

Napoleon D. Senit Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 192914. January 11, 2016 NAPOLEON, driving Super 5 Bus, suddenly overtook from the right side a big truck that slowed at the intersection. The bus crashed into the right side of Mohinder Toor, Sr.’s pick-up at a right angle.   All passengers of the pick-up were injured. The damage sustained by the pick-up reached P106,155.0 1.     Discuss NAPOLEON’S liability. All elements for the crime of reckless imprudence have been established in the present case. The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical con...

Camilo Sibal Vs. Pedro Buquel, et al. G.R. No. 197825. January 11, 2016 Define extrinsic fraud that justifies the action of annulment of judgment. According to Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals, fraud is extrinsic 1.     when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away, from court, a false promise of a compromise; or 2.     where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or 3.     where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; 4.     these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing. As a groun...

Pedro Ladines Vs. People of the Philippines and Edwin De Ramon G.R. No. 167333. January 11, 2016 While ERWIN was watching the dance held during the June 12, 1993 Grand Alumni Homecoming of the Bulabog Elementary School in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, PEDRO stabbed Erwin below the navel with a machete. LICUP also mounted his attack against ERWIN but the latter evaded. LICUP was acquitted of the offense charged for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court found PEDRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE sans any mitigating circumstances. The trial court imposed the highest within a period of the imposable penalty without specifying the justification. 1.     Did the Trial Court impose the proper period? Explain. No. Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the courts should impose the penalty prescribed by law in the medium period should there be neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances. And within the limits of each p...