G.R. NO.

174472 : Ju ne 19, 2007 For his part, appellant offered the hackneyed defense of denial to
refute the charges brought against him. Appellant claimed that the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENIGNO present criminal charges were brought against him in retaliation for
FETALINO y GABALDON, Accused-Appellant. the physical injuries he inflicted upon BBB during one of their heated
arguments which became frequent as he wanted BBB and her new
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: live-in partner to move out of their house in XXX St. In fact,
according to appellant, BBB even charged him with physical injuries
Facts: which was raffled off to a different branch of the court.
Appellant stood charged with two counts of acts of lasciviousness The trial court found appellant guilty as charged in all the cases filed
and three counts of rape allegedly committed against the person of against him.
his own daughter, AAA.
In view of the death penalty imposed by the trial court, the cases
AAA was called to the witness stand as a hostile witness by the were automatically elevated to this Court for review. The appellate
prosecution for she is no longer interested in prosecuting this case court modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting appellant of
against the accused. the two charges of rape and by downgrading the penalty imposed
from death to reclusion perpetua'
AAA testified that appellant raped her on three separate instances in
March 1999. She recalled that the events transpired in their house
which was then undergoing renovation. Appellant allegedly
undressed her and inserted his private organ into her vagina for Issues:
which she felt pain and cried. She claimed that she tried to resist
appellant's bestial attack and that she struggled with him by trying to W/n the crimes charged have been proven beyond reasonable
remove his hands. She could not shout for help as appellant doubt.
threatened her with harm. After satisfying his lust, appellant told her
not to report the incident to anybody or else he would kill her and her W/n the court a quo gravely erred in imposing upon the accused-
mother. She, however, finally revealed her sad experiences to her appellant the supreme penalty of death as the age of the private
mother sometime in 1999. Thereafter, she was brought to the crime complainant has not been sufficientyly proved.
laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City for a medical examination.
The physical examination was conducted by Dr. Tan whose test
confirmed that AAA was already in a non-virgin state physically.
Ruling:
BBB, AAA's mother, stated that on the evening of 25 March 1999,
BBB came home from Divisoria where she earned a living as a For the incidents that transpired on 21 and 22 March 1999, during
vendor. When she reached their house, a certain Paul Quiambao, a which he inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA appellant was
carpenter she hired to do some minor repairs in their abode, came to indicted merely for two counts of acts of lasciviousness when the
see her and informed her that he saw appellant on top of AAA. BBB appropriate charges should have been two separate counts of rape
talked to AAA to confirm the harrowing news that she had just under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
received. AAA finally had the courage to reveal to her mother that
her predicament in the hands of her own father. Art. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed:
1) By a man who [shall] have carnal knowledge of a woman under the change that intends to bring the criminal to the bar of justice even
any of the following circumstances: if the victim may not decide to complain due to fear, shame, or for
other reasons.
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
Thus, despite the claimed disinterest of AAA in pursuing the charges
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise against appellant, the choice of whether the cases would prosper
unconscious; was no longer hers alone. Besides, at the time AAA was presented
as a witness, almost three years had already lapsed. Events must
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; have taken place or influence might have been exerted upon her that
could have weakened her resolve to seek justice for what was done
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is to her. However, the fact remains that AAA never categorically
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above denied in open court the charges she hurled at appellant. On the
be present. contrary, when AAA was subjected to cross-examination, she
affirmed that appellant had indeed raped her.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by W]hen a sworn statement has been formally offered as evidence, it
inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any forms an integral part of the prosecution evidence which should not
instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. be ignored for it complements and completes the testimony on the
witness stand. A sworn statement is a written declaration of facts to
With these precedents, it is clear that the insertion of one's finger into
which the declarant has sworn before an officer authorized to
the genital or anal orifice of another person constitutes rape by
administer oaths. This oath vests credibility and trustworthiness on
sexual assault and not merely an act of lasciviousness like what was
the document. The fact that a witness fails to reiterate, during trial,
erroneously charged in this case. The court is enjoined by their
the contents of his sworn statement should not affect his credibility
primordial duty to observe appellant's constitutionally guaranteed
and render the sworn statement useless and insignificant, as long as
right to be informed of the charges against him. Certainly, they
it is presented as evidence in open court. This is not to say, however,
cannot allow themselves to be the ones to perpetrate the denial of
that the sworn statement should be given more probative value than
appellant's right to due process. He cannot be punished for an
the actual testimony. Rather, the sworn statement and the open
offense graver than that with which he was charged.
court declarations must be evaluated and examined together in toto
Appellant invokes, an accused is presumed innocent until proven so that a full and thorough determination of the merits of the case
guilty and to overcome this presumption, the prosecution must may be achieved. Giving weight to a witness' oral testimony during
establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. He the trial should not mean being oblivious to the other pieces of
contends that in this case, the fact that the prosecution presented available evidence such as the sworn statement. In like manner, the
AAA as a hostile witness casts doubt as to the culpability of court cannot give probative value to the sworn statement to the
appellant. exclusion of the oral testimony. In every case, the court should
review, assess and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by
This reclassification is necessary because under the existing law, the parties. AAA's sworn statement which forms part of the records
only the victim can file a complaint, if she wishes, or her parents, or of this case supplied the details of the incidents she experienced
grandparents in that order, which is very restrictive. It now prescribes during those fateful days.
that any citizen can file a complaint, even if the complainant may not
be the victim, or close relative of the victim. This is the significance of Appellant could only offer the defense of denial and point to BBB as
the brains behind the institution of these criminal charges against
him. Such bare-faced defense is obviously insufficient to overcome Filipino citizen under C.A. No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
AAA's categorical claim of being raped and sexually molested by Naturalization Law,
appellant. The rule is settled that against the positive identification by
the private complainant, the mere denials of an accused cannot The trial court granted the petition and admitted petitioner to
prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court. Philippine citizenship. The State, however, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, appealed all the names by which he is or had been
Appellant could not offer any plausible reason which could have known; (2) failed to state all his former place of residence; (3) failed
impelled AAA to bring these serious charges against him. All he to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his
could muster was to claim in the trial court that BBB was furious at entire stay in the Philippines, in violation of §2; (4) has no known
him and that the two of them engaged in frequent fights. lucrative trade or occupation and his previous incomes have been
Furthermore, a mother like BBB certainly would not expose her own insufficient or misdeclared, also in contravention of §2; and (5) failed
daughter to the ignominy of a rape trial simply to retaliate against her to support his petition with the appropriate documentary evidence.
husband for the transgressions, knowing fully well the life-long
stigma and scars that such a public trial could bring.

However, AAA's testimony pertaining to the second and third The Court of Appeals rendered its decision which, as already noted,
incidents of rape merely consists of laconic responses grossly reversed the trial court and denied petitioner's application for
inadequate to sustain appellant's conviction. Her answers during the naturalization. It ruled that due to the importance naturalization
prosecutor's examination are utterly lacking in material details that cases, the State is not precluded from raising questions not
would warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. presented in the lower court and brought up for the first time on
appeal.

Ong Chia failed to state in this present petition for

G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 naturalization his other name, "LORETO CHIA ONG," which
name appeared in his previous application under Letter of
ONG CHIA, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and Instruction No. 270..
THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Ong Chia failed to disclose in his petition for naturalization
MENDOZA, J.: that he formerly resided in "J.M. Basa St., Iloilo" and
"Alimodian, Iloilo." Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization
Law requires the applicant to state in his petition "his present
and former places of residence.". Ong Chia had not also
Facts: conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
when he lived-in with his wife for several years, and sired
four children out of wedlock. It has been the consistent ruling
Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. In 1932, as that the "applicant's 8-year cohabitation with his wife without
a nine-year old boy, he arrived at the port of Manila on board the the benefit of clergy and begetting by her three children out
vessel "Angking." Since then, he has stayed in the Philippines where of wedlock is a conduct far from being proper and
he found employment and eventually started his own business, irreproachable as required by the Revised Naturalization
married a Filipina, with whom he had four children. On July 4, 1989, Law", and therefore disqualifies him from becoming a citizen
at the age of 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a of the Philippines by naturalization . . .
 Ong Chia's alleged annual income in 1961 of P5,000.00, vs.
exclusive of bonuses, commissions and allowances, is not
lucrative income. His failure to file an income tax return MARCELO VALDEZ y MANZON accused-appellant.
"because he is not liable for income tax yet" confirms that his
income is low. It must be shown that the employment gives GANCAYCO, J.:
one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of
his income over expenses as to be able to provide for an
adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness,
Facts:
or disability to work and thus avoid one's becoming the
object of charity or public charge." Marcelo Valdez was charged with rape for willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously having sexual knowledge, through force, threats and
Issue: Whether or not the rules on evidence applies to a petition for
intimidation, of Lolita Baliton, against the latter's will.
naturalization.
Appellant, during each harvest season, stayed with the Baliton family
Ruling:
where he was given free board and lodging.
The answer is in the negative. Rule 1, Sec. 4 provides that:
On December 21, 1977, while Lolita, a 13 year old barrio lass, was
“These rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and
alone folding clothes with her 12-year old friend Victoria Flores,
election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other
appellant suddenly entered the house holding a balisong. He
cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
threatened the two girls that he would kill them and their families if
character and whenever practicable and convenient.” Prescinding
they screamed or told anyone about what would happen. Thereafter,
from the above, the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34)
he pulled Lolita towards him, and had carnal knowledge with Lolita
now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the
present case involving a petition for naturalization. The only instance The two girls were not able to do anything because of the continuing
when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in such threats of appellant.
cases is when it is "practicable and convenient." That is not the case
here, since reliance upon the documents presented by the State for Lolita testified that this heinous act was repeated in January 1978
the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical and with appellant repeating the same threats on her. Sometime in
convenient course of action considering that decisions in February, while appellant was away, Lolita finally narrated to her
naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule on res mother the gruelling experience she had.
judicata. Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not preclude
the State from later on moving for a revocation of the grant of The trial court found the accused guilty.
naturalization on the basis of the same documents
Issue: W/n the court erred in giving due credence to the testimonies
of the prosecution

Ruling:

G.R. No. L-51034 May 29, 1987 Appellant insists that the lower court should not have given the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses much weight as said
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, witnesses were not sincere, lacked candor, seriousness and
integrity. To discredit the testimony of the victim, appellant maintains The delay on the part of the victim in telling her mother and making a
that both of them were in fact sweethearts who before December 21, complaint should not be taken against her. The cause of this delay
1978 have had sexual intercourse on several occasions in the was well-explained in the lower court and that is, the girl feared for
camarin. To support this allegation, he presented as evidence a ring her own life and the lives of her friend and their families.Delay in
supposedly given to him by the victim. He further adds that he even reporting a rape incident due to death threats is justified.
proposed marriage to the girl.
Appellant's story appears incredible from every angle. It is
Next, appellant contends that the victim was obviously lying in Court unbelievable that young Lolita, fresh from her elementary grades,
because of her testimony that her panty was only lowered up to her would lure a much older man to have sex with her when the latter
thighs. His claim is that if this is true, then rape could not have been has not even told her about his feelings towards her. It is even more
committed because of the impossibility of insertion of the penis into difficult to believe that this girl would suggest sex in a place very near
the victim's vagina. her house, stay there for a long period of time to have more sex,
knowing the danger of being caught by any member of her family or
Also, according to the appellant the delay of the victim in telling her her neighbors.
mother and making a complaint only proves that there really was no
rape.

The court finds the testimony of the victim aside from being
sufficiently corroborated by the other witness and by medical
findings, credible to any reasonable person. It is true that there were G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
a few inconsistencies but they are too minor to affect the girl's
credibility. Such inconsistencies are well-expected to come from an
unexposed barrio lass not used to the rigours of a public trial. Next,
appellant failed to show a good reason for the girl's alleged CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs.
disposition to lie in court and the complicity of her family thereto. As
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents.
he admitted, he was treated very well just like any member of the
Baliton family. Indeed, it is very doubtful that the victim and her MENDOZA, J.:
young, friend would make up a story of rape for no motive at all.
Needless to say, Lolita, a girl of such tender age, will not expose
herself to public shame and humiliation by having to undergo a
physical examination and testify in open court if her rape charge is FACTS:
not true.
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta, wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin,
The Court cannot believe that the appellant and Lolita were in fact entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the
sweethearts. The ring presented in evidence could not have presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent’s secretary,
belonged to the victim because, as has been successfully proven by forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband’s clinic and
the prosecution, it was too small for her. took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between
Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled
The offer of marriage, instead of helping him in his defense, betrays checks, diaries, Dr. Martin’s passport, and photographs. The
the appellant's culpability. This could only be taken as an admission documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for
of guilt. legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine
which petitioner had filed against her husband. Dr. Martin brought quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows
this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
damages against petitioner. After trial, RTC rendered judgment for each owes to the other.
private respondent. The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued
was made final and petitioner. Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and
representatives were enjoined from "using or submitting/admitting as
evidence" the documents and papers in question. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Hence this petition. G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004

ISSUE: whether or not documents and/or correspondence taken by PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.JOEL YATAR alias
one spouse without the consent of the owner spouse may be used "KAWIT", appellant.
by former against the latter as evidence in an action for
disqualification to practice a profession.
FACTS:

Appellant Yatar was charged and convicted of Rape with Homicide

HELD: The documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
by the trial court. The basis of the conviction rest on circumstantial
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "theprivacy of
evidence gathered from the testimony of various witnesses, to: (1)
communication and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less
the presence of the accused at the crime scene within the timeframe
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved
of the approximate time of death of the victim; (2) at one point prior
by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against whom the
to the commission accused was seen wearing a white shirt with
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
collar; (3) latter on he was seen wearing a dirty white shirt with collar;
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order from a court
(4) when the body of the victim was found, a dirty white shirt was
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by
seen beside her; (5) the dirty white shirt with collar found at the crime
law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
scene was stained by blood; (6) when the blood stain and accused’s
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies
blood was subjected to DNA testing, it was found that it contained
between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking
the same DNA; (7) that when semen found inside the victim’s body
the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
was subjected to DNA testing, it was found to be identical to that of
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting
accused’s DNA.
marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant contends
to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between that the blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA tests were
the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right
testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected against selfincrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the
spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined Constitution.
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication;
ISSUES: Whether or not, taking of accused’s blood sample and DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and
subjecting the same to DNA testing is inadmissible in evidence as it exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more
amounts to violation of his right against self-incrimination. accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the
conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and
HELD: ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.

Accused’s contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the
against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or identification
against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungria’s testimony, it was determined
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does that the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that
not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an of the extracts subject of examination. A DNA match exists between
incrimination but as part of object evidence. It was held in People v. the semen found in the victim and the blood sample given by the
Rondero that although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples appellant in open court during the course of the trial.
were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation for forensic examination, the hair samples may be Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be
admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of used as long as it was relevant and reliable. The DNA evidence
testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which
acquired from the accused under duress. Hence, a person may be was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is
compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics
and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. Under and molecular biology.
People v. Gallarde, where immediately after the incident, the police
authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of
counsel, we ruled that there was no violation of the right against self-
incrimination. The accused may be compelled to submit to a physical
examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he
is accused. G.R. No. 97525. April 7, 1993.

Whether or not result of the DNA testing done on the sperm PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL
specimen may be used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction. SARTAGODA y BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUÑA y LAZARTE,
VICENTE STA. ANA y GUTIERREZ and JOHN DOE, accused-
appellants.

DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living Facts:
organisms. A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not
change throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood
is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and
It was the evening of July 2, 1988 while Rogelio de Belen, his two
shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and
daughters and his sister Vilma de Belen were sleeping in their house
rectal cells. No two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable
at Calamba, Laguna, when appellant broke in and woke him up,
exception of identical twins.
poking a knife at him. They tied up his hands and made him lie flat
on his stomach and asked for the key to his cabinet. Fearing for his
life and that of his companions, he reluctantly told them where the at the scene of the crime. They may be there yet they had not left
key was kept. any identifiable latent fingerprint.

Vilma, who heard whispers (kaluskos) but simply played possum.

When the three saw her on the bed, they approached her. One
covered her mouth as another poked a knife at her neck. They 2. Whether or not police line up is required for proper
threatened to kill her if she should make an outcry. identification

They raised her blouse and removed her underwear. They tied both
her hands so that she could offer no resistance. She was at such a
pitiful state when the accused Jimmy Bascuña went on top of her, The accused-appellants likewise contend that the police line-up had
kissing her on different parts of her body, while Vicente Sta. Ana held been irregularly conducted revealing suggestibility to their prejudice.
her legs apart. Jimmy finally inserted his sex organ inside her and They accused Pat. Reyes of coaching complainant that they were
satisfied his bestial desire. After Jimmy was over, Vicente took his not allowed to select their positions at the line-up; that they were not
turn and then Joel. After the three of them had successfully placed in line under a numeral against a wall marked to indicate their
deflowered Vilma, they left, carrying with them the money and other respective height in feet and inches; that there was no record made
personal belongings of the de Belen family. of their descriptions and physical characteristics; that the
witness/victim was not out of view of the three (3) accused lined-up
1. Whether or not the absence of fingerprints eliminates the for identification purposes."
possibility that the accussed in ot at the scene of the crime
These claims of irregularities are of little if not, of no significance at
The court cannot sustain their theory that from the negative findings all. The natural desire in the victim to seek retribution not simply from
in the fingerprint examination conducted in the course of the anybody who may be put before her but from the very same
investigation in the instant case, it must be concluded that they could offenders who actually did violence against her. It would be most
not have been at the scene of the crime. Negative findings do not at illogical for an outraged victim to direct her anger against anyone
all times lead to a valid conclusion for there may be logical other than her three offenders. No amount of coaching will be
explanations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than sufficient to counter the natural outrage of a rape victim against her
their not being present at the scene of the crime. abuser when said abuser is presented before her in a police line-up.

Only latent fingerprints found on smooth surface are useful for Whether or not there was a previous police line-up, the fact is that
purposes of comparison in a crime laboratory because prints left on they were positively identified at the trial. There is no law requiring a
rough surfaces result in dotted lines or broken lines instead of police line-up as essential to a proper identification. The
complete and continuous lines. Such kind of specimen cannot be complainant's recognition of the accused-appellants as her attackers
relied upon in a fingerprint examination. The latent fingerprints are cannot be doubted.
actually oily substances adhering to the surfaces of objects that
come in contact with the fingers. By their very nature, oily
substances easily spread such that when the fingers slide against
the surface they touch, no identifiable latent print is left, only 3. Whether or not non flight is a proof of innocence
smudges instead. The absence of one does not immediately
eliminate the possibility that the accused-appellants could have been
They claim that the fact that Vicente Sta. Ana and Jimmy Bascuña The court rendered a decision in favor of Gacot thus the Solicitor
did not flee, even when they had all the opportunities to do so, prove General elevated the case to the CA and filed a motion for the court
their innocence. Although it is settled that unexplained flight indicates to reopen and remand the case back to the trial court to allow the
guilt, it does, not necessarily follow that absence thereof proves Republic to present the decision of Judge Garlitos which motion was
innocence, specially so when there is overwhelming evidence to granted by the court. The hearing was set several times and Gacot
establish their guilt. was able to submit her memorandum while the Republic was unable
to submit any evidence to support the claim of the government in
court. For failure of the government to refute and to present their
evidence contrary to Gacot’s claim, the court decided not to disturb
Republic vs CA, 277 SCRA 633, 641 (1997) its former decision.

”Judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleading or judgment of a 45475

case in another court between the same parties or involving one of
the same parties as well as of the record of another case between The Republic assailed the decision of the court invoking 2061 that
different parties in the same court. Judicial notice will also be taken set the time limit of filing an application for the reopening of judicial
of court personnel.” proceedings on certain lands declared as public land, a provision
thereof provides that the application for judicial proceeding should
not extend beyond Dec. 31, 1968. Gacot only filed her claim on June
7, 1971 thus the court did not acquired jurisdiction on her claim as
Facts: she did not file her answer within the period fixed by RA 2061.
Josefa Gacot claimed a parcel of land, the area of which is not
indicated, in Palawan. Gacot claims that she has been in actual
possession of the property for more than 30 year and bought the Issue: Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the
land from Cipriana Dantic-Llanera by virtue of a deed of sale and case?
introduced improvement thereon and paid taxes for the land in her
name. It appears that a certain Ceferino Sabenacio is a co-owner of
the land who later waived his claim in favor of Gacot and admitted
that he was only a boundary owner of the land and it was Gacot who Ruling:
is in actual possession of it. Prior to the hearing, the Land
Registration Authority intervened, calling the attention of the court on The Court held that what the Solicitor General claims would have
the decision made by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos declaring the property been operative if it were able to present evidence during the
as owned by the Republic. However, it did not bar Gacos from filing rehearing of the case proving the alleged decision of Judge Garlitos
her answer, presenting evidence of her actual possession of the said declaring the property as public land. However they failed to offer
property and tax declaration and payment made in her name. The evidence on their claim and the court cannot take judicial notice of
counsel of the petitioner did not present evidence and submitted the such claim in the absence of any proof presented before the court.
case for resolution. The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to
allow the Republic to present evidence which they failed to do.
 material witness in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends
that the latter’s testimony should not be used against him
It is a settled rule that the court shall not consider evidence that has
not been formally offered before it. The court cannot take judicial
knowledge of the contents of the record of other cases, in the
adjudication of the cases pending before them even if the trial judge The Version of the Prosecution
knows or remember the contents thereof. While the case is on trial,
Josefa Gacot passed away and her heirs were impleaded to
substitute her as the party to the case. The court held to lax on the
technical rules of procedure in the case and to expedite the On December 12, 1988, a group of public officials from various
proceeding take a liberal construction on the laws to meet advance government agencies, organized themselves as a monitoring team to
the cause of substantial justice. Because the lot area awarded to inspect government projects in Zamboanga City.
Gacot was not specified in the records and based on the certification
On that particular day, the group headed to the Lincomo Elementary
of the Forest Management Services of the Department of
School to check on two of its classrooms. After inspecting the same,
Environment and Natural Resources, some of the lots in the area are
they proceeded to the Talaga Footbridge. The group was not able to
classified as alienable and disposable land, while some portion are
reach the place because on their way, they were stopped by nine (9)
timber land that forms part of the Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserve.
armed men who pointed their guns at them.
The court decided to remand back to the trial court the case for
proper disposition of the conflicting claims of the parties. The group alighted from their Cimarron jeep where they were
divested of their personal belongings. They were then ordered to
walk to the mountain by the leader of the armed men who introduced
G.R. No. 100901 July 16, 1998 himself as Commander Falcasantos.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.KULAIS, While the group was walking in the mountain, they encountered
government troops which caused their group to be divided. Finally,
PANGANIBAN, J.: they were able to regroup themselves. Commander Kamlon with his
men joined the others.

The kidnappers held their captives for fifty-four (54) days in the
Facts: forest. During their captivity, the victims were able to recognize their
captors who were at all times armed with guns. The wives of the
Appellants were charge with five (5) counts of kidnapping for ransom kidnappers performed the basic chores like cooking.
and three (3) counts of kidnapping before the RTC. Trial court
convicted the seven accused positively identified by the victims. Commander Falcasantos also ordered their victims to sign the
Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the ransom notes which demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 and
trial court took judicial notice of the testimony given in another case P14,000.00 in exchange for twenty (20) sets of uniform.
by one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader of the
government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts. On February 3, 1989, at around 12:00 o'clock noontime, the victims
Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross- examine a were informed that they would be released.
The Version of the Defense truck brought the spouses to the army battalion and placed them
inside the building where there were civilians and soldiers. Among
On May 28, 1990, at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, while the civilians present were her six co-accused.
weeding their farm in Sinaburan, Zamboanga del Sur, accused-
appellant Jumatiya Amlani was picked up by soldiers and brought to The husband of Norma Sahiddan is Jailon Kulais who, as heretofore
a place where one army battalion was stationed. Thereat, her five (5) narrated, was arrested with his wife the day the soldiers came to
co-accused, namely Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jainuddin their farm on May 28, 1990. He has shared with his wife the ordeals
Hassin, Imam Taruk Alah and Freddie Manuel were already that followed in the wake of their arrest and in the duration of their
detained. In the afternoon of the same day, appellants spouses confinement up to the present.
Jailon Kulais and Norma Sahiddan were brought to the battalion
station and likewise detained thereat. On May 30, 1990, the eight (8)
accused were transported to Metrodiscom, Zamboanga City. Here
on the same date, they were joined by accused-appellant Jaliha Issue:
Hussin.
The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of a material testimony
At the time Amlani was picked up by the military, she had just given in another case by Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who allegedly was
escaped from the captivity of Carlos Falcasantos and company who the team leader of the government troops which allegedly captured
in 1988 kidnapped and brought her to the mountains. After about two the accused-appellants in an encounter; thereby, depriving the
months, while she was cooking and Falcasantos and his two wives accused-appellants their right to cross-examine him.
were bathing in the river, and while her guard was not looking, she
took her chance and made a successful dash for freedom. Ruling:

Likewise a kidnap victim herself is accused-appellant Jaliha Hussin, Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the
who was thirteen years old at the time. She was kidnapped by Daing trial court took judicial notice of the testimony given in another case
Kamming and brought to the mountains where he slept with her. She by one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader of the
stayed with him for less than a month sleeping on forest ground and government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts.
otherwise performing housekeeping errands for Kamming and his Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross-examine a
men. She made good her escape during an encounter between the material witness in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends
group of Kamming and military troops. One day, at around 2:00 that the latter's testimony should not be used against him.
o'clock in the afternoon, while she was harvesting palay at the
True, as a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the
neighboring village of Tigbalangao, military men picked her up to
evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been
Ticbanuang where there was an army battalion detachment. From
tried or are pending in the same court, or have been heard and are
Ticbawuang, she was brought to Vitali, then to Metrodiscom,
actually pending before the same judge. This is especially true in
Zamboanga City, where on her arrival, she met all the other accused
criminal cases, where the accused has the constitutional right to
for the first time except Freddie Manuel.
confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
Another female accused is appellant Norma Sahiddan, a native of
Having said that, we note, however, that even if the court a quo did
Sinaburan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur. At about 3:00 o'clock in
take judicial notice of the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not
the afternoon of a day in May, while she and her husband were in
use such testimony in deciding the cases against the appellant.
their farm, soldiers arrested them. The soldiers did not tell them why
Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction
they were being arrested, neither were they shown any papers.. The
was based mainly on the positive identification made by some of the Defendant informed plaintiff of his termination and that he will be
kidnap victims. paid three (3) months salary in lieu of three months notice. Because
he could not uproot his family on such short notice, plaintiff
requested a three-month notice to afford him time to exhaust all
possible avenues for reconsideration and retention. Defendant gave
The appellant's bare denial is a weak defense that becomes even only two (2) months notice and one (1) month salary.
weaker in the face of the prosecution witnesses' positive
identification of him. Jurisprudence gives greater weight to the Aggrieved, plaintiff instituted a case for illegal dismissal before the
positive narration of prosecution witnesses than to the negative Labor Arbiter. Defendant moved to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds.
testimonies of the defense. Between positive and categorical Before said motion was resolved, the complaint was withdrawn.
testimony which has a ring of truth to it on the one hand, and a bare Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal
denial on the other, the former generally prevails. The victims termination of contract of services before the court a quo.
testified in a clear, straightforward and frank manner; and their
testimonies were compatible on material points. Moreover, no ill Again, defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging inter alia: (1) that
motive was attributed to the kidnap victims and none was found by the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and
this Court. (2) that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the instant case.
Defendant contends that the complaint is for illegal dismissal
together with a money claim arising out of and in the course of
plaintiffs employment "thus it is the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC who
have the jurisdiction pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code" and
that, since plaintiff was employed in Singapore, all other aspects of
G. R. No. 114776 - February 2, 2000 his employment contract and/or documents executed in Singapore.
Thus, defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and
courts thereat shall have jurisdiction.
MENANDRO B. LAUREANO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff claimed that: (1) where the items demanded in a complaint
AND SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, Respondents.
are the natural consequences flowing from a breach of an obligation
QUISUMBING, J.: and not labor benefits, the case is intrinsically a civil dispute; (2) the
case involves a question that is beyond the field of specialization of
labor arbiters; and (3) if the complaint is grounded not on the
employee's dismissal per se but on the manner of said dismissal and
Facts: the consequence thereof, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the
civil courts.
Sometime in 1978, plaintiff is an expatriate employed by Respondent
Singapore Airlines Limited on a contractual basis which is stipulated Defendant filed its answer reiterating the grounds relied upon in its
to last for five (5) years. However, due to recession, Respondent motion to dismiss and further arguing that plaintiff is barred by
decided to terminate some of their pilots, included in the termination laches, waiver, and estoppel from instituting the complaint and that
is herein plaintiff. he has no cause of action .

Trial court handed down its decision in favor of plaintiff. The

appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court.
 Petitioner claims that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled
when he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor
ISSUE: Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission. Although the
commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of
1. Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign law. prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by
the plaintiff leaves in exactly the same position as though no action
Neither can the Court determine whether the termination of the had been commenced at all."
plaintiff is legal under the Singapore Laws because of the
defendant's failure to show which specific laws of Singapore Laws 3. Whether petitioner's separation from the company due to
apply to this case. The Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of retrenchment was valid.
the laws of Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of
the Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The
defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should
be applied. It is a settled rule that contracts have the force of law between the
parties. From the moment the same is perfected, the parties are
2. What is applicable is Article 291 of the Labor Code, viz: bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly
stipulated but also to all consequences which, according to their
nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus,
when plaintiff-appellee accepted the offer of employment, he was
Art. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employee- bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the contract, among
employer relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall others, the right of mutual termination by giving three months written
be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action notice or by payment of three months salary. Such provision is clear
accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. and readily understandable, hence, there is no room for
interpretation.
In illegal dismissal, it is settled, that the ten-year prescriptive period
fixed in Article 1144 of the Civil Code may not be invoked by
petitioners, for the Civil Code is a law of general application, while
the prescriptive period fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code [now
Article 291] is a SPECIAL LAW applicable to claims arising from
employee-employer relations.

The language of Art. 291 of the Labor Code does not limit its G.R. No. 143276 July 20, 2004
application only to "money claims specifically recoverable under said
Code" but covers all money claims arising from an employee- LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
employer relations"
SPOUSES VICENTE BANAL and LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL,
In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal termination respondents.
was filed by plaintiff-appelle only on January 8, 1987 or more than
four (4) years after the effectivity date of his dismissal on November SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1, 1982. Clearly, plaintiff-appellee's action has already prescribed.
Facts: properties, and to file a written report thereof In determining just
compensation, the RTC is required to consider several factors.
Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal, respondents, are the
registered owners of agricultural land situated in San Felipe, Basud, Here, the RTC failed to observe the basic rules of procedure and the
Camarines Norte. A portion of the land was compulsorily acquired by fundamental requirements in determining just compensation for the
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to Republic Act property. Firstly, it dispensed with the hearing and merely ordered
(R.A.) No. 6657. the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Such action is
grossly erroneous since the determination of just compensation
The Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank), petitioner, made a involves the examination of the following factors specified in Section
valuation of the property which was rejected by the respondent.Thus, 17 of R.A. 6657, as amended:
a summary administrative proceeding was conducted before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the 1. the cost of the acquisition of the land;
valuation of the land. Eventually, the PARAD rendered its Decision
affirming the Landbank's valuation. 2. the current value of like properties;

Respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition for 3. its nature, actual use and income;
determination of just compensation, The trial court computed the just
compensation which is beyond respondents' valuation. 4. the sworn valuation by the owner; the tax declarations;

In determining the valuation of the land, the trial court based the 5. the assessment made by government assessors;
same on the facts established in another case pending before it.
6. the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and
The Landbank filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for the farmworkers and by the government to the property; and
review.The Appellate Court rendered a Decisio affirming in toto the
judgment of the trial court. 7. the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land, if any.

The RTC, in concluding that the valuation of respondents' property

Issue: merely took judicial notice of the average production figures in the
Rodriguez case pending before it and applied the same to this case
without conducting a hearing and worse, without the knowledge or
consent of the parties.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's
valuation of the land. As earlier mentioned, there was no trial on the Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial
merits. notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the
Ruling: same judge. They may only do so "in the absence of objection" and
"with the knowledge of the opposing party, which are not obtaining
In the proceedings before the RTC, it is mandated to apply the Rules here.
of Court and, on its own initiative or at the instance of any of the
parties, "appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate Furthermore, as earlier stated, the Rules of Court shall apply to all
and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute, including the valuation of proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In this regard,
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit on Gervel and Qua. RGC and Gervel paid Metrobank P7 million.
the necessity of a hearing before a court takes judicial notice of a Metrobank executed a waiver and quitclaim .A joint motion to dismiss
certain matter. Collection Case against RGC and Gervel.

Thus, we deem it proper to remand this case to the RTC for trial on RGC and Gervel demanded that Qua pay as reimbursement of the
the merits wherein the parties may present their respective evidence. total amount RGC and Gervel paid to Metrobank and PDCP. Qua
In determining the valuation of the subject property. refused to reimburse the amount to RGC and Gervel. Subsequently,
RGC and Gervel furnished Qua with notices of foreclosure of Qua’s
pledged shares.

Qua filed a complaint for injunction to prevent RGC and Gervel from
foreclosing the pledged shares. RTC denied the petition.

Trial in Foreclosure Case ensued. RGC and Gervel offered Qua’s

G.R. No. 144413 July 30, 2004 Motion to Dismiss in Collection Case No. 8364 as basis for the
foreclosure of Qua’s pledged shares which provides that the
REPUBLIC GLASS CORPORATION and GERVEL, INC, petitioners, payment made by RGC and Gervel redounded to the benefit of Qua.
vs. LAWRENCE C. QUA, respondent.
RGC and Gervel likewise offered as evidence the Order dismissing
CARPIO, J.: Collection Case which RTCsubsequently reversed on Metrobank’s
motion for reconsideration. Thus, RTC reinstated Collection Case
against Qua.
Facts:
RTC ordered RGC and Gervel to return the foreclosed shares of
stock to Qua.

Petitioners Republic Glass Corporation ("RGC") and Gervel, Inc. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the court a quo states
("Gervel") together with respondent Lawrence C. Qua ("Qua") were that payment of the entire obligation is not a condition sine qua non
stockholders of Ladtek, Inc. ("Ladtek"). Ladtek obtained loans from for the paying party to demand reimbursement. The parties have
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company ("Metrobank")5 and Private expressly contracted that each will reimburse whoever is made to
Development Corporation of the Philippines6 ("PDCP") with RGC, pay the obligation whether entirely or just a portion thereof.
Gervel and Qua as sureties. Among themselves, RGC, Gervel and
Under the Indemnity Agreements, in the event that the creditors are
Qua executed Agreements for Contribution, Indemnity and Pledge of
able to collect from him, he has the right to ask defendants to pay
Shares of Stocks.
their proportionate share, in the same way defendants had collected
It states in case of default in the payment of Ladtek’s loans, the from the plaintiff, by foreclosing his pledged shares of stock, his
parties would reimburse each other the proportionate share of any proportionate share, after they had made payments. From all
sum that any might pay to the creditors. indications, the provisions of the Indemnity Agreements have
remained binding between the parties.
Ladtek defaulted on its loan obligations to Metrobank and PDCP.
Hence, Metrobank filed a collection case against Ladtek, RGC,
Defendants’ payments gave rise to plaintiff’s obligation to reimburse The elements of judicial admissions are absent in this case. Qua
the former. Having failed to do so, upon demand, defendants were made conflicting statements in Collection Case and in Foreclosure
justified in foreclosing the pledged shares of stocks. Case and not in the "same case" as required in Section 4 of Rule
129. To constitute judicial admission, the admission must be made in
Qua appealed to the Court of Appeals and ordering RGC and Gervel the same case in which it is offered. If made in another case or in
to return the foreclosed shares of stock to Qua.20 another court, the fact of such admission must be proved as in the
case of any other fact, although if made in a judicial proceeding it is
The appellate court ruled that RGC and Gervel’s payment to the entitled to greater weight.
creditors only amounted to their proportionate shares of the
obligation.The payment did not extinguish the entire obligation and RGC and Gervel introduced Qua’s Motion to Dismiss and the Order
did not benefit Qua. Accordingly, RGC and Gervel cannot demand dismissing Collection Case No. 8364 to prove Qua’s claim that the
reimbursement. payment was for the entire obligation. Qua does not deny making
such statement but explained that he "honestly believed and pleaded
in the lower court and in CA that the entire debt was fully
extinguished when the petitioners paid P7 million to Metrobank.
1. Whether the principle of estoppel applies to qua’s judicial
statements that rgc and gervel paid the entire obligation.

On the party to be estopped, such party (1) commits conduct 2. Whether payment of the entire obligation is an essential
amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or condition for reimbursement
at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are
inconsistent with those which the party subsequently attempts to Payment of the entire obligation by one or some of the solidary
assert; (2) has the intent, or at least expectation that his conduct debtors results in a corresponding obligation of the other debtors to
shall at least influence the other party; and (3) has knowledge, actual reimburse the paying debtor.Payment of the entire obligation is not
or constructive, of the real facts. The essential elements of estoppel an essential condition before they can seek reimbursement from
are inexistent. Qua.

While Qua’s statements in Collection Case conflict with his Whether the solidary debtor has paid the creditor, the other solidary
statements in Foreclosure Case RGC and Gervel miserably failed to debtors should indemnify the former once his liability becomes
show that Qua, in making those statements, intended to falsely absolute. However, in this case, the liability of RGC, Gervel and Qua
represent or conceal the material facts. Both parties undeniably became absolute simultaneously when Ladtek defaulted in its loan
know the real facts. payment. As a result, RGC, Gervel and Qua all became directly
liable at the same time to Metrobank and PDCP. Thus, RGC and
RGC and Gervel further invoke Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Gervel cannot automatically claim for indemnity from Qua because
Court to support their stance: Qua himself is liable directly to Metrobank and PDCP.
Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written, made If we allow RGC and Gervel to collect from Qua his proportionate
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does share, then Qua would pay much more than his stipulated liability
not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by under the Agreements. In addition to the P3,860,646 claimed by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such RGC and Gervel, Qua would have to pay his liability of P6.2 million
admission was made. to Metrobank and more than P1 million to PDCP. Since Qua would
surely exceed his proportionate share, he would then recover from David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired and became the owner of a
RGC and Gervel the excess payment. This situation is absurd and residential lot situated in Matina, Davao City David M. Consunji, Inc.
circuitous. transferred said lot to its sister company, the DMC Urban Property
Developers, Inc. (DMC). Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered
Payment of any amount will not automatically result in said lot and built thereon the Habagat Grill DMC filed a Complaint for
reimbursement. If a solidary debtor pays the obligation in part, he Forcible Entry against Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo. Louie
can recover reimbursement from the co-debtors only in so far as his Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered into
payment exceeded his share in the obligation. This is precisely the lot in question and constructed the Habagat Grill thereon, thus
because if a solidary debtor pays an amount equal to his illegally depriving DMC of the possession of said lot since then up to
proportionate share in the obligation, then he in effect pays only what the present.
is due from him. If the debtor pays less than his share in the
obligation, he cannot demand reimbursement because his payment "Louie Biraogo denied illegally entering the lot in question. He
is less than his actual debt. averred that Habagat Grill was built in 1992 inside Municipal
Reservation No. 1050 (Presidential Proclamation No. 20) and so
The total obligation was P14,200,854.37 RGC and Gervel paid only DMC has no cause of action against him. Biraogo was directed by
P7 million out of the total obligation of P14,200,854.37, which the court to furnish the team with a copy of Municipal Reservation
payment was less than RGC and Gervel’s combined shares in the No. 20. Biraogo never complied. Worse, his designated Geodetic
obligation, it was clearly partial payment. Moreover, if it were full Engineer Panfilo Jayme never took oath as such and did not
payment, then the obligation would have been extinguished. participate in the Relocation survey.
Metrobank would have also released Qua from his obligation.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered a Decision dismissing
RGC and Gervel, in fact, never claimed that their payments the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of
exceeded their shares in the obligations. Consequently, RGC and action. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment affirming the
Gervel cannot validly seek reimbursement from Qua. appealed Decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the court of origin had jurisdiction
over the Complaint for Forcible Entry.

G.R. No. 155110. March 31, 2005

1. Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the case,

Petitioner argues that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over
HABAGAT GRILL Through LOUIE BIRAOGO, Proprietor/Manager, the case, because mere allegation of ownership did not, by itself,
Petitioners, vs. DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER, INC., show that respondent had prior possession of the property.
respondent.
Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations
PANGANIBAN, J.: pleaded in the complaint. As long as these allegations demonstrate a
cause of action either for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer, the
Facts: court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Petitioner alleged (1) prior possession, (2) deprivation thereof by or with inconclusive inferences from facts proved, especially where
strategy and stealth, and (3) the date such unlawful deprivation the ‘actor’ witness testifies to an act which the duties of his
started, which was less than one year from the filing of the employment required him to perform. But it said that the testimony of
Complaint. Considering the presence in the Complaint of all the one who evidently speaks rather to his custom than to his acts on the
necessary allegations,17 the trial court evidently acquired jurisdiction particular occasion will hardly suffice to put him in the category of
over the subject matter of the case. those who are specially favored by the Actor Rule.

Petitioner further contends that, respondent has not adduced The testimony of Garcia must be given greater weight, considering
preponderance of evidence to prove that this case was filed within that it was his task -- as the real property manager of respondent --
the one-year prescriptive period. Petitioner presented the testimony to know about matters involving the latter’s properties. In contrast, it
of a certain Samuel Ruiz and offered the minutes of the hearings was not explained how Ruiz could be deemed competent and
conducted by the Urban Planning and Economic Development credible in his testimony as to those matters.
(UPED) to prove that the construction of the Habagat Grill began in
1992. 2. Cause of Action

Respondent counters that the CA properly relied on the testimony of

the former’s real property manager, Bienamer Garcia, as he had
personal knowledge of the facts. Petitioner avers that no cause of action was alleged by respondent,
as shown by the following circumstances: (1) the latter’s property
was not encroached upon by Habagat Grill, which had allegedly
been constructed on a portion of land owned by the City Government
"Preponderance of evidence" means that the evidence adduced by of Davao; and (2) respondent failed to prove that its predecessor-in-
one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of interest had prior possession of the property.
the other.
On the other hand, respondent argues that the trial court
Under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, among the facts indiscriminately ignored the Report of the survey team that had been
and circumstances to be considered by the court in determining constituted to determine the exact location of Habagat Grill.
which of the presented evidence has superior weight is the Respondent further contends that the trial court erred in taking
witnesses’ means and opportunity to know the facts to which they judicial notice of the metes and bounds of the property covered by
testify.27 Presidential Proclamation No. 20. Although the lower court may take
judicial notice of PD No. 20, it may not do so in regard to the metes
The extent of such means and opportunity are determined by the and bounds of Times Beach. Neither, may it claim knowledge of the
following considerations: situational relation between the land in question and Times Beach.

"First, the ‘Actor Rule.’ This rule maintains that a person’s

recollection of his own acts and of the attendant circumstances is
more definite and trustworthy than another person’s recollection of it, Location of the Property
especially if it was an act done in the performance of a duty, or if the
other person’s testimony is little more than an expression of opinion
or judgment. Where a person’s testimony concerning his own
conduct conflicts with the testimony of a non-participating observer
We agree with respondent. "Judicial notice is the cognizance of petitioner unlawfully entered the premises and deprived the former of
certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without possession thereof.
proof because they already know them." Its object is to save time,
labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters
that are not ordinarily capable of dispute or actually bona fide
disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be assumed from the [G.R. NO. 148372 : June 27, 2005]
tribunal’s general knowledge or from a slight search on its part.
CLARION PRINTING HOUSE, INC., and EULOGIO YUTINGCO,
Indeed, municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit. Such notice, COMMISSION (Third Division) and MICHELLE MICLAT,
however, is limited to what the law is and what it states. The trial Respondents.
court took judicial notice of the existence of Presidential
Proclamation No. 20, which declared Times Beach a recreation CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
center. The MTC also took judicial notice of the location of the
beach, which was from the shoreline to the "road towards the
shoreline." On the basis of these premises, the trial court resolved Respondent Michelle Miclat was employed on a probationary basis
that the lot on which petitioner’s restaurant was located should as marketing assistant by petitioner Clarion Printing House
necessarily be inside Times Beach, which was owned by the City of (CLARION) owned by its co-petitioner Eulogio Yutingco. At the time
Davao. Hence, it was the City -- not respondent -- that had a cause of her employment, she was not informed of the standards that
of action against petitioner. To arrive at this conclusion, the MTC would qualify her as a regular employee.
made its own estimate of the location of the metes and bounds of the
property mentioned by the law. The EYCO Group of Companies of which CLARION formed part filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a "Petition for
The location of Habagat Grill cannot be resolved by merely taking the Declaration of Suspension of Payment, Formation and
judicial notice of Presidential Proclamation No. 20. Appointment of Rehabilitation Receiver/ Committee, Approval of
Rehabilitation Plan with Alternative Prayer for Liquidation and
Neither may the MTC take discretionary judicial notice under Section
Dissolution of Corporation"
2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, because the exact boundaries of
the lot covered by that law are not a matter of public knowledge The Assistant Personnel Manager of CLARION informed Miclat by
capable of unquestionable demonstration. Neither may these be telephone that her employment contract had been terminated. Miclat
known to judges because of their judicial functions. was informed by the General Sales Manager that her termination
was part of CLARION's cost-cutting measures.
Finally, petitioner avers that respondent failed to prove that the
latter’s predecessor-in-interest had prior possession of the property. Miclat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CLARION and
Yutingco (petitioners) before the National Labor Relations
For one to be considered in possession, one need not have actual or
Commission (NLRC).
physical occupation44 of every square inch of the property at all
times. In the present case, prior possession of the lot by Miclat claimed that she was never informed of the standards which
respondent’s predecessor was sufficiently proven by evidence of the would qualify her as a regular employee. She asserted, however,
execution and registration of public instruments and by the fact that that she qualified as a regular employee since her immediate
the lot was subject to its will from then until December 1, 1993, when
supervisor even submitted a written recommendation in her favor First, Clarion presented no evidence whatsoever before the Labor
before she was terminated without just or authorized cause. Arbiter. Clarion presented its 1997 and 1998 financial statements
and the SEC Order for the Creation of an Interim Receiver, for the
Respecting the alleged financial losses cited by petitioners as basis first time on appeal before the NLRC. The Supreme Court has
for her termination, Miclat disputed the same, she contending that as consistently disallowed such practice unless the party making the
marketing assistant tasked to receive sales calls, produce sales belated submission of evidence had satisfactorily explained the
reports and conduct market surveys, a credible assessment on delay. In the instant case, said financial statements are not
production and sales showed otherwise. admissible in evidence due to Clarion's failure to explain the delay.

Miclat claimed that assuming that her termination was necessary, the Second, even if such financial statements were admitted in evidence,
manner in which it was carried out was illegal, no written notice they would not alter the outcome of the case as statements have
thereof having been served on her, and she merely learned of it only weak probative value.
a day before it became effective.
The employer must present the statement for the year immediately
Petitioners claimed that they could not be faulted for retrenching preceding the year the employee was retrenched, which Clarion
some of its employees including Miclat, they drawing attention to the failed to do in the instant case, to prove not only the fact of business
EYCO Group of Companies' being placed under receivership, notice losses but more importantly, the fact that such losses were
of which was sent to its supervisors and rank and file employees via substantial, continuing and without immediate prospect of
a Memorandum that in the same memorandum, the EYCO Group of abatement.
Companies advised them of a scheme for voluntary separation from
employment with payment of severance pay; and that CLARION was Even if business losses were indeed sufficiently proven, the
only adopting the "LAST IN, FIRST OUT PRINCIPLE" when it employer must still prove that retrenchment was resorted to only
terminated Miclat who was relatively new in the company. after less drastic measures such as the reduction of both
management and rank-and-file bonuses and salaries, going on
Petitioners referred to the EYCO Group of Companies' Memorandum reduced time, improving manufacturing efficiency, reduction of
which, so they claimed, substantially complied with the notice marketing and advertising costs, faster collection of customer
requirement, it having been issued more than one month before accounts, reduction of raw materials investment and others, have
Miclat was terminated. been tried and found wanting. Again, petitioner failed to prove the
exhaustion of less drastic measures short of retrenchment as it had
The labor arbiter found that Miclat was illegally dismissed and failed with the other requisites.
directed her reinstatement.

The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. Petitioners filed a

Petition for Certiorari15 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA A. HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT MICLAT WAS
sustained the resolutions of the NLRC ILLEGALLY DISMISSED;

In the instant case, Clarion failed to prove its ground for B. ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF PRIVATE
retrenchment as well as compliance with the mandated procedure of RESPONDENT MICLAT TO HER FORMER OR EQUIVALENT
furnishing the employee and the Department of Labor and POSITION WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND
Employment (hereafter, DOLE) with one (1) month written notice and BENEFITS AND PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES, 1[3]th MONTH PAY
payment of separation pay to the employee. AND TWO (2) DAYS SALARY.18
Contrary to the CA's ruling, petitioners could present evidence for the This Court in fact takes judicial notice of the Decision of the Court of
first time on appeal to the NLRC. It is well-settled that the NLRC is Appeals "Nikon Industrial Corp., Nikolite Industrial Corp., et al.
not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on [including CLARION], otherwise known as the EYCO Group of
appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor Companies v. Philippine National Bank, Solidbank Corporation, et
cases. al., collectively known and referred as the 'Consortium of Creditor
Banks,' " which was elevated to this Court via Petition for Certiorari.
The settled rule is that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving
evidence on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in That judicial notice can be taken of the above-said case of Nikon
labor cases. In fact, labor officials are mandated by the Labor Code Industrial Corp. et al. v. PNB et al., there should be no doubt.
to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law
or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
As provided in Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court:
It is likewise well-settled that for retrenchment to be justified, any
claim of actual or potential business losses must satisfy the following
standards: (1) the losses are substantial and not de minimis; (2) the
losses are actual or reasonably imminent; (3) the retrenchment is SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take
reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence
expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are proven by government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
sufficient and convincing evidence.25 And it is the employer who has admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
the onus of proving the presence of these standards. political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
thelegislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
The provisions of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, the appointment of a the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
receiver or management committee by the SEC presupposes a divisions.
finding that, inter alia, a company possesses sufficient property to
cover all its debts but "foresees the impossibility of meeting them A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
when they respectively fall due" and "there is imminent danger of same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the same
dissipation, loss, wastage or destruction of assets of other properties case, of the authenticity of its own records of another case between
or paralization of business operations." the same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and
of public records on file in the same court. In addition judicial notice
will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment of a case in
another court between the same parties or involving one of the same
That the SEC, mandated by law to have regulatory functions over parties, as well as of the record of another case between different
corporations, partnerships or associations, appointed an interim parties in the same court. Judicial notice will also be taken of court
receiver for the EYCO Group of Companies on its petition. It shows personnel.
that CLARION, together with the other member-companies of the
EYCO Group of Companies, was suffering business reverses This Court's finding that Miclat's termination was justified
justifying, among other things, the retrenchment of its employees. notwithstanding, since at the time she was hired on probationary
basis she was not informed of the standards that would qualify her
as a regular employee, under Section 6, Rule I of the Implementing against CLARION under the peculiar circumstances of the case -
Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code which reads: that 8 years have lapsed since her termination and that all the
arguments and defenses of both parties were already ventilated
SEC. 6. Probationary employment. There is probationary before the labor arbiter, NLRC and the CA; and that CLARION is
employment where the employee, upon his engagement, is made to already in the course of liquidation - this Court deems it most
undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his expedient and advantageous for both parties that CLARION's liability
fitness to qualify for regular employment, based on reasonable be determined with finality, instead of still requiring respondent to
standards made known to him at the time of engagement. lodge her claim at this time before the liquidators of CLARION which
would just entail a mere reiteration of what has been already argued
(d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall and pleaded. Furthermore, it would be in the best interest of the
make known to the employee the standards under which he will other creditors of CLARION that claims against the company be
qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where finally settled and determined so as to further expedite the liquidation
no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall proceedings. For the lesser number of claims to be proved, the
be deemed a regular employee" sooner the claims of all creditors of CLARION are processed and
settled.
CLARION, however, failed to comply with the notice requirement
provided for in Article 283 of the Labor Code, to wit:

ART. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF

PERSONNEL. 'The employer may also terminate the employment of
any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title,
by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor
and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
thereof.

This Court thus deems it proper to award the amount equivalent to

Miclat's one (1) month salary of P6,500.00 as nominal damages to
deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process
rights of employees.31

With the appointment of a management receiver in September 1997,

however, all claims and proceedings against CLARION, including
labor claims,32 were deemed suspended during the existence of the
receivership. The labor arbiter, the NLRC, as well as the CA should
not have proceeded to resolve respondent's complaint for illegal
dismissal and should instead have directed respondent to lodge her
claim before the then duly-appointed receiver of CLARION. To still
require respondent, however, at this time to refile her labor claim