CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ

CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ 

G.R. No. 267108 

February 05, 2025  

 

FACTS: 

Spouses Nuñez, Conrado and Maria had six children. According to the petitioners, Maria and her family occupied a parcel of land, the Corregidor Property since the early 1960’s. In 1988, to develop the property, Oscar, one of the children was tasked to process a loan with the ADB to fund the development. The Corregidor Property was used as a collateral for the loan. Maria died in 1988 and after full payment of the loan, the petitioners discovered that Maria’s title and tax declaration were already cancelled, and a title of ownership was issued in the name of Oscar.  

People v. Gervero G.R. No. 206725 July 11, 2018

 

People v. Gervero 

G.R. No. 206725 

July 11, 2018  

 

FACTS: 

On or about the 25th day of November, 1991, the accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, armed with firearms, they were then provided, through treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, shoot and hit HERNANDO VILLEGAS, JOSE VILLEGAS and BENITO BASUG, JR. with said firearms inflicting upon said Hernando Villegas, Jose Villegas and Benito Basug, Jr. numerous gunshot wounds on different parts of their bodies which caused their deaths immediately thereafter. 

The RTC found the accused guilty of murder which the CA affirmed with modification, hence this appeal.  

JAMES CUA KO versus Republic of the Philippines

JAMES CUA KO versus Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 210984

April 12, 2023

FACTS:

Shalimar filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with one Kerwin. While the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was still pending, Shalimar gave birth to "Jamie Shaye." In Jamie Shaye's certificate of live birth, Shalimar indicated "James Cua Ko" as the name of Jamie Shaye's father. James executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission to support the entry of his name in Jamie Shaye's certificate of live birth. Eventually, Shalimar's marriage to Kerwin was voided by the RTC.

James subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child before the RTC. The trial court denied the petition and MR. The CA affirmed the trial court's Decision. MR was denied, hence this petition.

DR. BENIGNO A. AGBAYANI, JR. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

DR. BENIGNO A. AGBAYANI, JR. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 215121

June 23, 2021

FACTS:

Dr. Agbayani was charged before the MeTC with reckless imprudence resulting ln serious physical injuries in an Information that reads:

On or about January 5, 2006. in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused, being then the surgeon and/or orthopoedist of complainant Saul Q- Hofilena, Jr., did then and there voluntarily but without malice, conduct an arthroscopy upon said complainant in a reckless manner by using a medical instrument (arthroscope) that was not sterilized without taking the necessary precaution to avoid injury to said complainant, taking into consideration his employment or occupation and degree of intelligence, causing as a consequence of his said carelessness, recklessness, negligence, imprudence and lack of precaution the said complainant to suffer serious physical injuries on his left knee which rendered him incapacitated for work and/or labor for more than thirty (30) days and in fact said complainant had undergone another operation at St. Luke's Hospital, Quezon City on his left knee to remove the infection introduced by the accused and subsequent operation on his right wrist as a result of walking with a care for a prolonged period of time, to the damage and prejudice of said Saul Q. Hofilena. Jr.

Dr. Agbayani pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The MeTC rendered its Decision finding Dr. Agbayani guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries. 

MICHAEL JOHN ROBLES VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

MICHAEL JOHN ROBLES VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 223810

August 02, 2023

FACTS:

The Information reads that on or about the 27th day of July 2009, accused Robles, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive without license an unregistered Suzuki Raiders motorcycle with no plate number along CPG North Avenue comer Benigno Aquino Avenue, Tagbilaran City, in a careless, negligent and imprudent manner, in violation of the traffic rules and regulations and ordinances, without due regard to safety, life and property and without taking the necessary precautions to avoid accident to person or damage to property, thereby causing by such carelessness, negligence and imprudence said Suzuki Raiders motorcycle to hit and bump a Yamaha Crypton motorcycle bearing driven by Ronelo causing damage to the motorcycle death to the latter and less serious physical injuries to the backrider. The MTCC found Robles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide, Less Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 of the RPC. The CA denied the appeal.

Hence, this petition.

Pedro Talisay vs. People of the Philippines

Pedro Talisay vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 258257

August 9, 2023

On or about September 29, 2016, the accused, with deliberate intent and moved by lewd design, taking advantage of the minority of his 15-year old victim, [AAA], and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally commit acts of lasciviousness upon her, by kissing her on her cheeks, removing her pants and panty, and satisfying [his] sexual desire by placing his penis outside of her vagina, which acts are constitutive of sexual abuse which debases, degrades or demeans her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim. He was charged with Violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs.

ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

 A.C. No. 6672               

September 4, 2009

FACTS: 

Respondent convinced the clients of complainant to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of ₱50,000. Complainant also attached "respondent’s" calling card. 

Petitioner filed a disbarment case against respondent for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found that the respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant. 

REX G. RICO VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

 

REX G. RICO VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 210928, February 14, 2022

 

FACTS:

Union Bank issued Rico a Union Bank Visa credit card. Rico filed a complaint for damages before the RTC claiming that he suffered embarrassment, social humiliation, mental anguish, serious anxieties, besmirched reputation, and wounded feelings when his card was dishonored at Gourdo's Restaurant. Union Bank asserted that when Rico used his credit card at Gourdo's Restaurant, it was dishonored because his account was already in "past due" status for failure to pay the minimum amount due. Union Bank averred that it should not be held liable for damages since it was Rico who failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the credit card. The RTC ruled in favor of Rico. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the amount of damages.

LORENZO WILLY VS. REMEDIOS F. JULIAN

 

LORENZO WILLY VS. REMEDIOS F. JULIAN

G.R. No. 207051. December 01, 2021

 

FACTS:

Modesto owned an unregistered land. Modesto executed a written agreement conveying portions of the subject property to three individuals namely Jularbal, Catbagen and Dongpaen. Later, on various dates, a series of sale transactions occurred among Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo for the sale of Lots 1 and 2 to Ricardo. Pursuant to an arrangement with Modesto and his son, Lorenzo, who offered to cultivate Ricardo's portion of the subject property, Ricardo saw no need to occupy Lots 1 and 2, and simply allowed Lorenzo's possession thereof.  Later, upon learning that petitioners had attempted to sell even his portion of the subject property, Ricardo began resorting to administrative remedies. Consequently, Ricardo filed a Civil Case complaint for Partition of Property and Damages. The MCTC ruled in favor of Ricardo. The RTC reversed the MCTC decision. The CA affirmed the MCTC ruling.

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 G.R. No. 251157, September 29, 2021

 

FACTS:

     BPI issued petitioner David a pre-approved credit card. The terms and conditions provide that the cardholder agrees to pay all charges incurred within twenty calendar days from the assigned cut-off date without need for demand. Any unpaid amount thereafter is subject to monthly 3.25% interest and 6% penalty charge. He started delaying in his payments. Demands for payment were unheeded thus the bank sued petitioner and his wife for sum of money. Petitioner denied that he had agreed to the terms and conditions, specifically the payment of interest and penalty charges. The MeTC ruled that petitioner was liable for interest and penalty charges. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. The CA computed anew petitioner’s obligation.

HEIRS OF JOSE DE LARA, SR. VS. RURAL BANK OF JAEN

 HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ         

G.R. No. 236826. March 23, 2022

FACTS:

Jose, a farmer-beneficiary under P.D. 27 obtained a loan from respondent bank secured by a mortgage over the subject land. He failed to pay his obligation hence the mortgage was foreclosed. Respondent bank acquired the land through a public auction and the sale was registered with the Register of Deeds. A year passed but Jose nor his heirs redeemed the land thus respondent bank executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of ownership. Respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the TCT of the land before the PARAD which granted the petition. On appeal to the DARAB, the ruling was reversed. The CA reinstated the PARAD decision.

HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ

 HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ         

G.R. No. 236826. March 23, 2022

FACTS:

Herminio sold to Epifania a parcel of land. Epifania undertook to pay the total price within the year. If Epifania failed to comply with the terms, the sale agreement would be considered or treated as a lease contract. Epifania made an initial payment of P 2,000.00. Respondents later received from Alma Marquez demand letters to vacate the premises of the subject property. It appears that Marquez and Herminio executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights whereby Herminio waived all his rights, interest and participation over the property wherein sold property to Epifania was located in favor of Marquez. Herminio allegedly refused to execute a deed of absolute sale over the subject property in favor of Epifania. Thus, respondents' complaint for specific performance against Herminio. Marquez was later impleaded. Petitioners alleged that Epifania reneged on her obligation to complete payment of the purchase price hence their initial agreement became one of lease, and not a contract of sale. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners and was upheld by the CA.

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 

FACTS:

          BPI issued petitioner David a pre-approved credit card. The terms and conditions provide that the cardholder agrees to pay all charges incurred within twenty calendar days from the assigned cut-off date without need for demand. Any unpaid amount thereafter is subject to monthly 3.25% interest and 6% penalty charge. He started delaying in his payments. Demands for payment were unheeded thus the bank sued petitioner and his wife for sum of money. Petitioner denied that he had agreed to the terms and conditions, specifically the payment of interest and penalty charges. The MeTC ruled that petitioner was liable for interest and penalty charges. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. The CA computed anew petitioner’s obligation.

BENDECIO AND MASCARIÑAS vs. BAUTISTA

 

BENDECIO AND MASCARIÑAS vs. BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 242087. December 07, 2021

FACTS:

Bautista alleged that she lent Bendencio a loan totaling P 1,100,000 payable in May 2013 with monthly interest at 8%. Bendecio informed her that Mascariñas would be paying the loans by depositing a manager's check in her account. But the same never materialized. Instead, Mascariñas executed a promissory note in her favor promising to pay her the total amount of the loan with the same interest rate. Still, neither Bendecio nor Mascariñas paid despite her oral demands and the demand letter she sent to them. This led her to file a complaint before the RTC which ruled in her favor. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling. 

NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

G.R. Nos. 158190-91 June 21, 2006 NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ------- ---------x

G.R. Nos. 158276 and 158283 June 21, 2006 BAGONG NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS SA NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. (BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU), vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

A 2000-2001 labor dispute between Nissan Motors and BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU ("Union" hereafter) triggered by a collective bargaining deadlock resulted in (1) the filing of four (4) notices of strike, the first filed on December 4, 2000 on account of the alleged suspension of about 140 employees following a disruption of company operations; and (2) the dismissal from the service of a number of company employees. 

Top Form Mfg. Co., Inc. v. NLRC

Top Form Mfg. Co., INC.
v.
NLRC
G.R. No. 65706
December 11, 1992

FACTS:

Respondent Malubay was a head supervisor at Top Form manufacturing Inc. (petitioner). On January 10, 1981, private respondent and her co-supervisors were called to a meeting by Dickinson John, production Manager. Dickinson declared that he was not satisfied with the production output, berating private respondent and the other supervisors, "You are bullshits". "You Filipinos, get out, you are all lazy, you are like pigs, all of you go home. I do not want to see your face again."

As a result, respondent told and instructed her co-supervisors. "Huwag pumasok sa lunes para matauhan si Dickinson." Thus on the next working day, they absented themselves from work. However, on January 13, she and her companions reported for work. 

On January 16, 1981, petitioner filed an application for a clearance to terminate the services of respondent on the ground of "loss of management confidence." Private respondent was placed under preventive suspension leading to her termination. 

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC, reversed the arbiter. MR was denied, hence the instant petition. 

Ma. Socorro Mandapat vs. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc.

Ma. Socorro Mandapat
vs. 
Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. 
G.R. NO. 180285
July 6, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner was hired as sales and marketing manager for respondent. Respondent claims that during her stint as sales manager, petitioner failed to close a single deal or contract. She also issued several proposals to clients which were disadvantageous to respondent and sent out communications with erroneous data and computations, submitted fictitious reports and reimbursement slips; and consistently failed to submit her reports on time. 

These infractions were sent to petitioner in a show-cause order. Petitioner was also preventively suspended and was asked to turn over pending tasks and to leave the office premises. Accompanied by her letter in response to the show-cause memorandum, petitioner tendered her resignation.

Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the labor arbiter. The LA ruled in favor of petitioner. The NLRC affirmed with modification the labor arbiter's findings. The CA ruled that petitioner was not constructively dismissed but chose to resign from her job. 

MICIANO vs. BRIMO

 

MICIANO vs. BRIMO
G.R. No. L-22595             
November 1, 1927

FACTS:

Joseph Brimo a Turkish national left a will regarding his estate in the Philippines. The testator in the second clause of the will said that although he is a Turkish citizen, it is his wish that the distribution of his property be made in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine islands. He requested his relatives to respect his wish otherwise he annuls and cancels beforehand whatever disposition found in the will favorable to the person who fails to comply with such request.

SOLEDAD L. LAVADIA vs. HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA

SOLEDAD L. LAVADIA vs. HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA

G.R. No. 171914               

July 23, 2014

FACTS:

ATTY. LUNA married Eugenia but they eventually agreed to live apart and to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of property. ATTY. LUNA later obtained a divorce decree of his marriage with EUGENIA from the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the First Circumscription of the Court of First Instance of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic and on the same date, contracted another marriage, this time with SOLEDAD. Thereafter, ATTY. LUNA and SOLEDAD returned to the Philippines and lived together as husband and wife until 1987.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Orbecido III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

G.R. No. 154380 

October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros M. Villanueva were married on May 24, 1981.

In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States. Cipriano later discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. In 2000, Cipriano learned that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code which the court granted. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence the instant petition.