JUAN V. COMELEC (ELECTION, REMEDIAL)

A ballot indicates the voter's will. There is no requirement that the entries in the ballot be written nicely or that the name of the candidate be spelled accurately. In the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot is presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its rejection.

The object of appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. When placed in issue, the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents which involves a question of fact is best left to the determination of the COMELEC.

The SC is not a trier of facts. The Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of the COMELEC on this matter operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. Verily, only where grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the SC interfere with the COMELEC's judgment. Proof of such grave abuse of discretion is found wanting in this case.

LABAYEN V. SERAFICA (CIVIL)

The lease contract contained the stipulation that the contract could be automatically cancelled if the lessee failed to pay the rentals or to comply with the stipulations in the contract. It was within the right of the respondent as lessor to avail himself of the automatic termination clause provided in the contract. Thus, whatever damages petitioners may have suffered as consequences of the termination of the lease contract and the consequent cancellation of its annotation in respondent's title would have to be borne by them alone.

THERE IS A MATERIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN DAMAGES AND INJURY. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.

Thus, there can be damage without without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal right. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone.

THE LAW AFFORDS NO REMEDY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM AN ACT WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A LEGAL INJURY OR WRONG. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.

AGULLANO V. CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING (LABOR)

The Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence uniformly mandate that NO WORKER SHALL BE DISMISSED EXCEPT FOR A JUST OR VALID CAUSE PROVIDED BY LAW, AND ONLY AFTER DUE PROCESS IS PROPERLY OBSERVED. In recent decisions, the SC said that dismissals have two facets: (1) the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and (2) the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.

Though petitioner's habitual unexplained absences and tardiness constitute habitual and gross neglect of duties in compliance with the first facet of a valid dismissal (just cause), on the second requisite, i.e., procedural due process, the SC found employer's compliance with the twin-notice requirement sadly wanting and inadequate.

To reiterate, under the twin-notice rule, the employees must be given two (2) notices before employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice containing the specific causes or grounds for termination against them and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period; and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

The dismissal from employment was attended by a violation by the employer of procedural due process.

Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectuall. The employer is to indemnify in the form of NOMINAL DAMAGES the employee for violations of his statutory rights and the indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer TO DISCOURAGE THE ABHORRENT PRACTICE OF "DISMISS NOW, PAY LATER.

NICOPIOR V. VASQUEZ (GOVT EMPLOYEE CONDUCT)

Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness, not only in the performance of their official duties, but also in their personal and private dealings with other people, so as to preserve all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. Any scandalous behavior or act that may erode the people's high esteem to the judiciary unbecomes an employee.

The SC has always emphasized that the conduct and behavior of every person connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest employee, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.

This is so because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. Thus, court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in order to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.

PACQUING V. JUDGE GOBARDE (JUDICIAL CONDUCT)

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. Judges are enjoined to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions efficiently, fairly, AND WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS.

Mandatory rules prescribing the time to render judgment and to resolve pending incidents within 90 days from the time of submission for resolution are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.

The failure to decide a case within the required period is inexcusable as it constitutes GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND NEGLECT OF DUTY warranting administrative sanction.

KARA-AN V. PINEDA (DISBARMENT)

Records show that the evidence adduced by the complainant is insufficient to warrant the imposition of the supreme sanction of disbarment.

DISBARMENT is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and the moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.

VIAJE V. SHERIFF DIZON (ADMIN LAW)

The dismissal of the charges for grave misconduct and dishonesty is proper because Viaje despite notice, failed to attend the hearings scheduled by Judge Santos. In administrative cases, the complainant has the burden of proving by SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE the allegations in the complaint. And in the absence of contrary evidence, THE PRESUMPTION THAT RESPONDENT HAS REGULARLY PERFORMED HIS DUTIES PREVAILS.

Time and again we have held that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs play a significant role in the administration of justice. They are primarily responsible for the execution of a final judgment which is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law. Thus, sheriffs must at all times, show high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties. As officers of the court, they are expected to uphold the norm of public accountability and to avoid any kind of behavior that would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.

MONTUERO V. MAYOR TY AND SANGGUNIAN BAYAN (LOCAL GOVT)

The law is clear. Under Section 443(a) and (d) of RA 7160, The Local Government Code, the head of a department or office in the municipal government, such as the Municipal Budget Officer, shall be appointed by the Mayor with the concurrence of all Sanggunian Bayan members, subject to civil service law, rules, and regulations.

Per records, the appointment of petitioner was never submitted to the Sanggunian Bayan for its concurrence, or even if so submitted, no such concurrence was obtained. such factual finding of quasi-judicial agencies, especially if adopted by the CA, is deemed final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally, does not weigh anew evidence already passes upon by the CA. Absent any showing that this case falls under any of the exceptions to this general rule, the SC will refrain from disturbing the findings of fact of the tribunals below.

UCPB V. SARINDERJIT BLUE RIVER NAVIGATION (CIVIL)

A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT is a contract whereby parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It contemplates mutual concessions and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of litigation, or when litigation has already begun, to end it because of uncertainty of the result. The process of compromise has long been allowed in our jurisdiction and in the jurisdiction of other states as well.

The validity of the agreement is determined by compliance with the requisites and principles of contracts. Like any other contract, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT MUST NOT BE CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, PUBLIC POLICY, AND PUBLIC ORDER.

BASMALA V. COMELEC AND SUMAGAYAN (POLI)

The issue of who was the duly elected mayor of Taraka, Lanao del Sur during the 10 May 2004 National and Local Elections has been RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC by the expiration of the term of the contested office and the election and proclamation of a new set of municipal officers after the 14 May 2007 National and Local elections.

It is an exercise in futility indeed for the Court to still indulge in a review of records and in an academic discussion of the applicable legal principles to determine who really won because whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any particular legal effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced.

Notwithstanding, the Court finds that no grave abuse of discretion tainted the assailed COMELEC resolutions as to warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. MERE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS NOT ENOUGH. It must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.

The COMELEC in resolving the case, examined the records of the protest, the evidence submitted by the parties, and the pertinents election documents. As it is a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country, its findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence are FINAL, NON-REVIEWABLE, AND BINDING upon the Court.

Further, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC. Let it be reiterated that the Court is not a trier of facts and it will only step in if there is a showing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

MONFORT III V. SALVATIERRA (CRIM)

PERJURY is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter.

Elements:

That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;

1. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;
2. That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ASSERTION OF A FALSEHOOD; and
3. That the sworn statement or afidavit containing the falsity is required by law to be made for a legal purpose.

The third element of perjury requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asseted a falsehood. A mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. It msut be deliberate and willful.

POLTAN V. BPI FAMILY (CIVIL)

A CONTRACT OF ADHESION is defined as one in which one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other party may accept or reject, but the latter cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his adhesion thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.

The accepted rule is that a contract of adhesion is not per se inefficacious and is not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. A contract of adhesion is just as binding as ordinary contracts.

PAREDES V. CALILUNG (CRIM)

Estafa by means of deceit: Elements

1. That there must be

• false pretense;
• fraudulent act; or
• fraudulent means;

2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means be made or executed PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE FRAUD;

3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, i.e., he was induce to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and

4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

The conduct of preliminary investigation (PI) for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is EXECUTIVE in nature. The main function of a government prosecutor during his conduct of PI is to determine the existence of probable cause and to file the corresponding information should he find it to be so.

BUENAVENTURA V. REPUBLIC (LTD)

Confirmation of Imperfect Title

Application for registration of title before the RTC, whether personally or through duly authorized representatives: Who may file?

1 Those who, by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest:

• have been in OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, AND NOTORIOUS possession and occupation of the subject land;
• which land must be ALIENABLE and DISPOSABLE land of public domain; and
• that such possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier; and

2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by PRESCRIPTION under the provisions of law.

Thanks, sweet KOD! (:

I owe this sweet lady big time! Too bad she had to leave work early last year, but it's all for the best. She's now taking her Masters in the US. She is one bright girl, I tell you (: I really envy the tapang that she has! Hahaha!

One time, I asked her if she could swing by UP Law to secure me the Q&A booklets. The next day, she had them already. And with these Law Reports she said she finds helpful in review.

I'm now reading these cases and digesting. Will write them all here.

The last time we spoke was Christmas 08 - her birthday.
Miss you, KOD (: