Effect of Novation to BP22

Anent the petitioner’s contention that novation had extinguished his criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22, we likewise find the same utterly specious. The petitioner ought to be reminded that novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. As astutely opined by the CA, novation may only prevent the rise of criminal liability if it occurs prior to the filing of the Information in court. In other words, novation does not extinguish criminal liability but may only prevent its rise (Edgardo Medalla Vs. Resurreccion D. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362. January 18, 2012).

Issues Elevated on Appeal

In this respect, the NLRC cannot be accused of grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 4(c), Rule VI of the NLRC Rules, the NLRC shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the issues that were elevated on appeal. The NLRC, while not totally bound by technical rules of procedure, is not licensed to disregard and violate the implementing rules it implemented.

Nonetheless, technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. Technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man. This Court may choose not to encumber itself with technicalities and limitations consequent to procedural rules if such will only serve as a hindrance to its duty to decide cases judiciously and in a manner that would put an end with finality to all existing conflicts between the parties (Timoteo H. Sarona Vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Roayle Security Agency, et al., G.R. No. 185280. January 18, 2012).

Appeal Despite Finality of Decision

The finality of the NLRC’s decision does not preclude the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. That the NLRC issues an entry of judgment after the lapse of ten (10) days from the parties’ receipt of its decision will only give rise to the prevailing party’s right to move for the execution thereof but will not prevent the CA from taking cognizance of a petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due process considerations (Timoteo H. Sarona Vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Roayle Security Agency, et al., G.R. No. 185280. January 18, 2012).

Earnest Money

The P100,000.00 that was given to Msgr. Cirilos as “deposit” cannot be considered as earnest money. Where the parties merely exchanged offers and counter-offers, no contract is perfected since they did not yet give their consent to such offers. Earnest money applies to a perfected sale (Starbright Sales Eterprises, Inc. Vs. Philippine Realty Corporation, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, et al., G.R. No. 177936. January 18, 2012)

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).