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.

MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOC. V. MANILA HOTEL CORP. (LABOR)

Defiance of the assumption order or a return-to-work order by a striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act and therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status.

The assumption of jurisdiction by the SOLE over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or a lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a police power measure.

A return-to-work order is immediately executory notwithstanding the filing of an MR or any petition questioning its validity. Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation, regardless of their motives.

As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on the side of the laboring classes, not only because the Constitution imposes sympathy but because of the one-sided relation between labor and capital. The Court must take care however, that in the contest between labor and capital, the results achieved are fair and in conformity with the rules.

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.