Forum Shopping

Moreover, this Court has constantly held that the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first case are the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for purposes of determining whether the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.

The grave mischief sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping, i.e., the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions, is well-nigh palpable in this case. If the Muntinlupa RTC were to rule that Michelle was entitled to a Protection Order, this would necessarily conflict with any order or decision from the Makati RTC granting Juan Ignacio visitation rights over Ava and Ara. As aptly pointed out by Juan Ignacio in his Comment such a conflict had already occurred, as the TPO issued by the Muntinlupa RTC actually conflicted with the Orders issued by the Makati RTC granting Juan Ignacio temporary visitation rights over his children. There now exists an Order from the Muntinlupa RTC which, among others, directed Juan Ignacio to stay at least one (1) kilometer away from Ava and Ara, even as the Makati RTC recognized, in two (2) separate Orders, that he had the right, albeit temporarily to see his children (Michelle Lana Brown-Araneta, et al. Vs. Juan Ignacio Araneta, G.R. No. 190814. October 9, 2013).

Registration of Unregistered Land

Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a better right.’ The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded (Spouses Celemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Ma. Rosario M. Sabitsana Vs. Juanito F. Muertegui, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Domingo A. Muertegui, Jr., G.R. No. 181359. August 5, 2013).

Destructive Arson v. Simple Arson

P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This law punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness. Simple arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political, and national security implications than destructive arson (People of the Philippines Vs. Alamanda Macabando, G.R. No. 188708. July 31, 2013). 

Reconstitution - Jurisdictional Requirements

Verily, while the CA invoked the appropriate provisions of R.A. No.  26, it failed, however, to take note that Section 9 thereof mandatorily requires that the notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title and the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title. In this case, the RTC failed to indicate these jurisdictional facts in the notice.

While it is true that notices need not be sent to the adjoining owners in this case since this is not required under Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 26 as enunciated in our ruling in Puzon, it is imperative, however, that the notice should specify the names of said interested parties so named in the title sought to be reconstituted. No less than Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 mandates it.

In view of these lapses, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction to proceed with the case since the mandatory manner or mode of obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed by R.A. No. 26 had not been strictly followed, thereby rendering the proceedings utterly null and void (Republic v. Camacho, G.R. No. 185604. June 13, 2013).

Separation Pay

In the subsequent case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission, it was further elucidated that “in addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer or his family, separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee.” In Reno Foods, Inc, v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan,  the Court wrote that “separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee’s fault, such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause.” (Unilever Philippines, Inc. Vs. Maria Ruby M. Rivera, G.R. No. 201701. June 3, 2013).

Official Ballot; Revision of Ballots

We agree, therefore, with both the HRET and Panotes that the picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise “official ballots” that faithfully captures in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369.  As such, the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.

It should be pointed out, however, that the provision in question is couched  in  the  permissive  term  "may"  instead  of  the  mandatory  word "shall."  Therefore,  it  is  merely  directory,  and  the  HRET is  not  without authority to opt to proceed with the revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts even if there was no reasonable recovery made by the protestant in the initial revision (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato Vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Elmer E. Panotes/Elmer E. Panotes Vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, G.R. No. 199149/G.R. No. 201350. January 22, 2013).

Acceptance by Corporation

Even assuming that the bank officer or employee whom petitioner claimed he had talked to regarding the March 22, 1984 letter had acceded to his own modified terms for the repurchase, their supposed verbal exchange did not bind respondent bank in view of its corporate nature.  There was no evidence that said Mr. Lazaro or Mr. Fajardo was authorized by respondent bank’s Board of Directors to accept petitioner’s counter-proposal to repurchase the foreclosed properties at the price and terms other than those communicated in the March 22, 1984 letter (Heirs of Fausto C. Ignacio Vs. Home Bankers Savings and Trust co., et al., G.R. No. 177783. January 23, 2013).