Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION and SHIG KATAYAMA v. HON. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY DIGEST

FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION and SHIG KATAYAMA v. HON. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY, et al. 
513 SCRA 637 (2007), SECOND DIVISION, (Carpio Morales, J.) 

The trial judge need not state with specificity or make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon by him to arrive at his decision. It suffices that upon his own personal evaluation of the evidence and the law involved in the case, he is convinced that there is no probable cause to indict the accused. 

FACTS: First Women‘s Credit Corp. (First Women), represented by stockholder and director Shig Katayama (Katayama), filed criminal charges against Ramon P. Jacinto (Jacinto), Jaime C. Colayco (Colayco), Antonio P. Tayao (Tayao) and Glicerio Perez (Perez) for falsification of private document and grave coercion. 

The criminal charges did not pursue when Jacinto, et al., filed a ―Motion to Withdraw Informations and to Dismiss the Cases.‖ The same was granted by Acting Presiding Judge Rommel Baybay of MeTC of Makati.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

FRANCIA v. POWER MERGE CORPORATION DIGEST

AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., et al. v. POWER MERGE CORPORATION 
476 SCRA 62 (2005), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

Cause of action may be determined on the four corners of the complaint and the annexes attached to it may be considered parts thereof. 

FACTS: Amos P. Francia, Jr. and his sister Cecilia Zamora placed, on the suggestion of the bank manager, an investment at Westmont Investment Corporation (WINCORP). Every time his investment matures, Francia would instruct a roll over and he would be issued a receipt reflecting the amount of his placement, the net interest rate, and the duration of the placement. Soon, Francia and Cecilia attempted to withdraw their investments but they failed for the reason that WINCORP and Westmont Bank were facing financial difficulties. 

Despite several attempts to forge an out-of-court settlement between Francia and Cecilia and WINCORP and PMC, the same failed. Francia sent PMC a demand letter to pay within fifteen days the total amount of the maturity values of his placement. Receiving no response from PMC, Francia and Cecilia filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against WINCORP and PMC. WINCORP and PMC filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the allegations in the complaint and its annexes failed to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled in favor of Francia and Cecilia. PMC thereafter assailed the trial court's orders before the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65. The CA reversed the trial court‘s decision.

Monday, October 20, 2014

HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI DIGEST

HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI 
526 SCRA 103 (2007), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

If the evidence presented is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, it does not follow that the same is insufficient to prove his civil liability. 

FACTS: Eung Won Choi (Choi) was charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati for issuing a postdated check in the amount of P1,875,000. The same was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Choi filed a demurer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. The Makati Metropolitan Trial Court granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case. 

Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect. RTC held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to prove respondent‘s criminal liability, it did not altogether extinguish his civil liability. Upon a motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC for further proceedings, so that the defendant may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

ILANO vs ESPAÑOL DIGEST

VICTORIA J. ILANO v. HON. DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL, et al. 
478 SCRA 365 (2005) (Carpio Morales, J.) 

Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, its dismissal is not proper for the defendant may ask for more particulars. 

FACTS: Amelia Alonzo is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano. During those times that Ilano is in the Unied States for medical check-up, Alonzo was entrusted with Ilano‘s Metrobank Check Book which contains both signed and unsigned blank checks. 

A Complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. Ilano contends that Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks. Alonzo likewise succeeded in inducing Ilano to sign antedated Promissory Notes. The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action and failure to allege the ultimate facts of the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Hence, this petition. 

Saturday, October 18, 2014

ELPIDIO BONDAD JR., Y BURAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES DIGEST

ELPIDIO BONDAD JR., Y BURAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
574 SCRA 497 (2008), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act provides that failure of the apprehending or buy-bust team to conduct inventory of the seized articles warrant the acquittal of the accused. 

FACTS: Elpidio Bondad, Jr. was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During the trial, the prosecution witnesses averred that Bondad was arrested pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted where he was allegedly found to have been in possession likewise of two other sachets of white crystalline substance, later on found to be the prohibited drug, shabu. 

The prosecution witnesses admitted and confirmed that there was no physical inventory taken of the seized drugs, neither were there photographs taken thereof, immediately after its seizure and confiscation, contrary to the mandate of Section 21(1), R.A. 9165.

Friday, October 17, 2014

ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS., INC., v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO DIGEST

ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS., INC., v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO., et al. 
482 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

Jurisdiction is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. 

FACTS: Allgemein filed before Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court a motion for intervention, with prayer for the annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, delivery of title, and damages and for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) to consolidate its title and take possession of its properties. The RTC, however, denied the same. 

Hence, Allgemein filed a separate petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. The CA denied Allgemein‘s prayer for theissuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for failure to establish a clear and unmistakable right to the subject properties.