1.    In appeal, what is the power of the the appellate court?

It must be remembered that when a case is appealed, the appellate court has the power to review the case in its entirety. In Heirs of Alcaraz v. Republic of the Phils., the Court explained that an appellate court is empowered to make its own judgment as it deems to be a just determination of the case, to wit:

In any event, when petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appealed case was thereby thrown wide open for review by that court, which is thus necessarily empowered to come out with a judgment as it thinks would be a just determination of the controversy. Given this power, the appellate court has the authority to either affirm, reverse or modify the appealed decision of the trial court. To withhold from the appellate court its power to render an entirely new decision would violate its power of review and would, in effect, render it incapable of correcting patent errors committed by the lower courts.


2.    True or False. Only decisions of the Court, excluding all other courts such as the CA, form part of the legal system.


True. Stare Decisis applies only to cases decided by the Supreme Court.

In De Mesa v. Pepsi-Cola Products Phils. Inc., the Court explained that the doctrine of stare decisis deems decisions of this Court binding on the lower courts, to wit:

The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere 1s entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, to wit:

It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires our courts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.


3.    What are the questions or issues that may be raised in petition for review under Rule 45? Also, State the exception.


It is axiomatic that, as a rule, only questions of law may be raised under a petition for review under Rule 45 because the Court is not a trier of facts and the factual findings of lower courts are final, binding or conclusive on the parties and to the Court.

As with every rule, however, it admits certain exceptions. Among the recognized exceptions are when the conclusion of the lower court is one grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.


Prime Town Property Group, Inc. and E. Ganzon were the joint developers of the Kiener Hills Mactan Condominium Project. PPGI transferred UCPB the right to collect the receivables of the buyers, which included respondents, of units in Kiener Hills.

On 17 April 2006, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Regional Office (HLURB Regional Office) received respondents' complaint for sum of money and damages against PPGI and UCPB. They claimed that in spite of their full payment of the purchase price, PPGI failed to complete the construction of their units in Kiener Hills.

The Court of Appeals ordered UCPB to pay the Respondents based on the rules promulgated by the CA in the case of O'Halloran. Argued that O'Halloran and the other cases cited by UCPB are not binding pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis because they were decided by the CA and not by the Supreme Court. As such, respondents posited that only decisions of the Court, excluding all other courts such as the CA, form part of the legal system.


4.    May the CA rely on its previous ruling as binding based on the rule of stare decisis?


No. The doctrine of stare decisis becomes operative only when judicial precedents are set by pronouncements of this Court to the exclusion of lower courts. It is true regardless whether the decisions of the lower courts are logically or legally sound as only decisions issued by this Court become part of the legal system. At the most, decisions of lower courts only have a persuasive effect. Thus, respondents are correct in contesting the application of the doctrine of stare decisis when the CA relied on decisions it had issued.


5.    Is UCPB jointly or solidarily liable to PPGI against respondents?


Jointly liable. Considering that UCPB-is a mere assignee of the rights and receivables under the Agreement, UCPB did not assume the obligations and liabilities of Primetown under its contract to sell with Spouses Choi. Thus, UCPB is only bound to refund the amount it had unquestionably received from respondents.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more