Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping

A reading of respondents’ verification reveals that they complied with the abovequoted procedural rule. Respondents confirmed that they had read the allegations in the Complaint which were true and correct based on their personal knowledge. The addition of the words "to the best" before the phrase "of our own personal knowledge" did not violate the requirement under Section 4, Rule 7, it being sufficient that the respondents declared that the allegations in the complaint are true and correct based on their personal knowledge.

As to respondents' certification on non-forum shopping, a reading of respondents’ Verification/Certification reveals that they, in fact, certified therein that they have not commenced any similar action before any other court or tribunal and to the best of their knowledge no such other action is pending therein. The only missing statement is respondents' undertaking that if they should thereafter learn that the same or similar action has been filed or is pending, they shall report such fact to the court. This, notwithstanding, the Court finds that there has been substantial compliance on the part of respondents (Georgia T. Estel Vs. Heirs of Recaredo P. Diego, Sr., namely, Recaredo Jr., Roline, Ramel, Rhoel, and Ruby, all surnamed Diego,
G.R. No. 174082. January 16, 2011).

Tort

If the passenger’s cause of action against the airline company is premised onculpa aquiliana or quasi-delict for a tort committed by the employee of the airline company’s agent, there must be an independent showing that the airline company was at fault or negligent or has contributed to the negligence or tortuous conduct committed by the employee of its agent (Sps. Fernando and Lourdes Viloria Vs. Continental Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 188288. January 16, 2011).

Increase in Interest Rate

It is the contention of the appellee that he has the right to suspend payments since the increase in interest rate imposed by defendant-appellant FDC is not valid and therefore cannot be given legal effect. Although Section II, paragraph d of the Contract to Sell entered into by the parties states that, “should there be an increase in bank interest rate for loans and/or other financial accommodations, the rate of interest provided for in this contract shall be automatically amended to equal the said increased bank interest rate, the date of said amendment to coincide with the date of said increase in interest rate,” the said increase still needs to [be] accompanied by valid proofs and not one of the parties must unilaterally alter what was originally agreed upon. However, FDC failed to substantiate the alleged increase with sufficient proof (Fedman Development Corporation Vs. Federico Agcaoili, G.R. No. 165025. August 31, 2011).

Jurisdiction of IBP

The IBP cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the land. It is not within its authority to determine whether the complainant has a legal right to the properties involved in the transactions and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of law and facts regarding the parties’ legal rights to a dispute (Rizalina L. Gemina Vs. Atty. Isidro S. Madamba, A.C. No. 6689. August 24, 2011).

Public Bidding

The grant of the right of first refusal in this case did not only substantially amend the terms of the contract bidded upon, so that resultantly, the other bidders thereto were deprived of the terms and opportunities granted to respondent after it won the public auction, it so altered the bid terms – the very admission by all parties that the disposal of fly ash must be through public bidding – by effectively barring any and all true biddings in the future. The grant of first refusal was a grant to respondent of the right to buy fly ash in all coal-fired plants of NPC. Proceeding from the afore-cited jurisprudence, the Batangas Contract is, consequently, a nullity.

As adverted to above, the disposal of NPC power plants’ fly ash is governed by COA Circular Nos. 86-264 and 89-296. These circulars direct that public auction shall be the primary mode of disposal of assets of the government and sale through negotiation shall be resorted to only in case of failure of public auction. For failure to abide by the requirement of a public bidding in the disposal of government assets, this Court is left with no option but to likewise declare the Sual and Masinloc Contracts null and void.

In conclusion, this Court stresses that although a right of first refusal is a contractual prerogative recognized by both law and jurisprudence, the grant of such right in this case is invalid for being contrary to public policy.

Grounds for Dispossession of Agricultural Tenant

The rule is settled that failure to pay the lease rentals must be willful and deliberate in order to be considered as ground for dispossession of an agricultural tenant. While the “term ‘deliberate’ is characterized by or results from slow, careful, thorough calculation and consideration of effects and consequences,” the term "willful" has been “defined as one governed by will without yielding to reason or without regard to reason.”

The foregoing disquisition notwithstanding, we find that Antonio’s dispossession is, however, still warranted by his repeated violations of the terms of the Leasehold Agreement which prohibited, among other matters, the cultivation of other plants on Manahan’s properties, the expansion of the tenant’s dwelling as well as the non-synchronized plantings and harvests thereon. Granted that paragraph III (G) of DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1993 allows the tenant to plant secondary crop on the land provided he shoulders the expenses thereof, Antonio’s planting of kangkong directly flies in the face of the categorical prohibition in the Leasehold Agreement against the planting of other plants on the land and Manahan’s objections/complaints against the same as early as 24 November 1994.^[41] Antonio’s claim that that kangkong grew naturally on the property is belied by the pictures submitted by Manahan and the PARAD’s finding that a 3,000 square meter portion of the property was devoted to said plant. To our mind, the legitimacy of Manahan’s complaint is borne out by the 7 October 1998 certification issued by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) that kangkong deprives rice plants of essential plant foods, overcrowds them and generally reduces the yield.

In addition, it was likewise established that Antonio planted other vegetable crops like string beans, tomatoes, squash and eggplant, built three pigpens and another residential structure on the land and resorted to rice planting in three phases, in violation of the express prohibitions in the Leasehold Agreement (Rene Antonio Vs. Gregorio Manahan, G.R. No. 176091. August 24, 2011).

Payment of Insurance Claim

Section 241 of the Insurance Code provides that no insurance company doing business in the Philippines shall refuse without just cause to pay or settle claims arising under coverages provided by its policies. And, under Section 243, the insurer has 30 days after proof of loss is received and ascertainment of the loss or damage within which to pay the claim. If such ascertainment is not had within 60 days from receipt of evidence of loss, the insurer has 90 days to pay or settle the claim. And, in case the insurer refuses or fails to pay within the prescribed time, the insured shall be entitled to interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board (New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. Vs. Nyk-FilJapan Shipping Corp., et al./New World International Development(Phils.), Inc. Vs. Seaboard-Eastern Insurance Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. 171468/G.R. No. 174241. August 24, 2011).

Summary Judgment

A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false issue. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue. Summary judgment is proper in such a case (Pilipino Telephone Corporation Vs. Radiomarine Network (Smartnet) Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160322. August 24, 2011).

Conspiracy

Conspiracy was also duly established as Ricky Ramos testified that while Cleofe pulled Nelson, Leonardo fired shots at Nelson. Conspiracy was evident from the coordinated movements of the two accused, their common purpose, being, to kill Nelson (People of the Philippines Vs. Cleofe Baroquillo y Villanueva, et al. accused; and Cleofe Baroquillo y Villanueva, and Leonardo Mahilum y Cañete, accused-appellants,
G.R. No. 184960. August 24, 2011).