Unformatted text preview: 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES THE COURT’S WORK
ADJUDICA
TION
ADJUDICATION
Article VIII, section 1 of the 1987 Constitution vests the judicial power in “one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law.” A primary aspect of the judicial power is adjudication,
which includes the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.”
In 2012, the Court, sitting En Banc and in division, promulgated the following Decisions, pursuant
to its work of adjudication.
GR No. 199486, Cosalan v
v.. Domogan, January 17, 2012 (En Banc Resolution)
The Supreme Court issued a writ of kalikasan and temporary environmental protection order
directing the Baguio City local government, headed by Mayor Mauricio Domogan and Vice Mayor
Daniel Farinas, to “cease and desist from making use of the Irisan dump site either as a temporary
holding/staging area or as a dumping or controlled area for any and all kinds of solid waste.” The
Court issued the writ after a petition was filed against the city government due to a trash slide in 2011
that claimed six lives. 79 80 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR Nos. 177857-58, COCOFED v
v.. Republic; GR
v.. Republic, January 24, 2012,
No. 178193, Ursua v
En Banc
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the
Sandiganbayan ruling that reconveyed to the
government San Miguel Corporation (SMC) shares
in the aggregate amount of P1.656 billion bought
using coconut levy funds. These shares had been
registered in the names of the Coconut Industry
Investment Fund (CIIF) and its holding companies.
It denied the consolidated petitions of the Philippine
Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et
al. and Danilo S. Ursua, former COCOFED officer,
assailing the anti-graft court’s ruling that, among
others, declared the coco levy fund-bought SMC
shares as public funds.
GR No. 164197, Securities and Exchange
Commission v
.Com, Inc., January 25,
v.. Prosperity
Prosperity.Com,
2012, Third Division
The Supreme Court sustained the application
of the Howey Test in determining the existence of
an investment contract so as to require registration
before the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code
(SRC). It unanimously held that Prosperity.Com,
Inc. (PCI)’s scheme in selling its computer software
is more akin to network marketing rather than an
investment contract.
GR No. 185124, Republic v
v.. Rural Bank of
Kabacan Inc., January 25, 2012, Second Division
The Supreme Court excluded the value of
excavated soil from the payment for just
compensation to the owners of expropriated
properties in Cotabato used by the National
Irrigation Authority (NIA) for its MalitubogMarigadao Irrigation Project in 1994. Upholding
the ruling of the Court of Appeals Twenty-First
(21st) Division which had deleted the inclusion of
the value of the excavated soil in the payment for
just compensation, the Court held that there was
no legal basis to separate the value of the
excavated soil from that of the expropriated
properties as the soil has no value separate from
that of the expropriated land.
GR No. 187107, United Claimants Association
of NEA v
v.. NEA, January 31, 2012, En Banc
The Supreme Court upheld the National
Electrification Administration (NEA) Termination
Pay Plan, affirming the power of NEA to terminate
its employees as provided in the Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law). It held
that under Rule 33, sec. 3(b)(ii) of the EPIRA Law Implementing Rules and Regulations, all NEA
employees shall be considered legally terminated
with the implementation of a reorganization
program pursuant to a law enacted by Congress
or pursuant to Sec. 5(a)(5) of PD 269, the law
creating the NEA. Sec. 5(a)(5) of PD 269 gives
NEA the power to organize or reorganize its
staffing structure.
GR No. 153304-05, People v
v.. Sandiganbayan,
February 7, 2012, En Banc
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the
Sandiganbayan dismissing two cases of
malversation of public funds against former First
Lady Imelda R. Marcos and two other former
government officials. It dismissed the petition
filed by the People of the Philippines assailing
the decision of the Sandiganbayan which had
granted the demurrers to evidence filed by
Marcos, together with Jose Conrado Benitez, and
Rafael Zagala, former Minister and Deputy
Minister, respectively, of the Ministry of Human
Settlements (MHS). It ruled that as a grant of
demurrer to evidence amounts to a judgment of
acquittal brought about by the dismissal of the
case for insufficiency of evidence, any further
prosecution of the accused would violate the 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES constitutional proscription on double jeopardy,
except on two grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and/or
(2) where there is a denial of a party’s due process
rights.
GR No. 171701, Republic v
v.. Marcos-Manotoc,
February 8, 2012, Second Division
The Supreme Court reinstated the children of the
late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and former First
Lady Imelda R. Marcos, namely, Ma. Imelda “Imee”
R. Marcos-Manotoc, Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong”
R. Marcos, Jr., and Irene R. Marcos-Araneta, as
defendants in the ill-gotten wealth case in connection
with the Marcoses’ accumulation of at least P200
billion and use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC2, and RPN-9 for the family’s personal benefit, among
others, now pending before the Sandiganbayan. This
even as it found wanting the conduct of the
prosecution of the case by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
GR No. 193978, Galicto v
v.. Pres. Aquino III,
February 28, 2012, En Banc
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a
petition to nullify and enjoin the implementation of Executive Order (EO) No. 7 issued by President
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino precluding the grant and
release of bonuses and allowances to the Board of
Directors of government-owned and –controlled
corporations (GOCCs) and government financial
institutions and increase of salary rates and new or
additional benefits and allowances to GOCC and GFI
employees.
GR No. 151258, Villareal v
v.. People; GR No.
v.. CA; GR No. 155101, Dizon v
v..
154954, People v
People; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, Villa v
v..
Escalona, February 1, 2012, Second Division
The Supreme Court modified the offenses of
several of the accused in the cases involving the
hazing death of Leonardo “Lenny” Villa in 1991. It
modified the appealed judgment of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in GR No. 155101 finding petitioner
Fidelito Dizon guilty of homicide and that in GR
No. 154954 finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel
Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent
Tecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries
by instead holding all five guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
It sentenced each to suffer an indeterminate prison
term of four months and one day of arresto mayor,
as minimum, to four years and two months of 81 82 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
moot and academic when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful
purpose can be served in passing upon the merits
of the case. Nieto, a member of Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation (PHC)’s Board of Directors,
challenged the decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) to annul the orders of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) directing the PHC
to convene its annual stockholders’ meeting. er, March 14, 2012,
GR No. 166216, Aberca v
v.. V
Ver
Third Division
The Supreme Court ruled that former Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff
Fabian Ver and other subordinate AFP officers
were deprived of procedural due process when
they were declared by the trial court in default
based on a defective mode of service, i.e., service
of notice to file answer by publication in a case
for damages filed by former military detainees.
Consequently, it affirmed the decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) directing the remand of
the case to the lower court for further
proceedings. prision correccional, as maximum. In addition, it
ordered them jointly and severally to pay the heirs
of Lenny Villa P50,000 civil indemnity ex delicto,
P1,000,000 moral damages, plus legal interest on
all damages awarded at the rate of 12% from the
date of the finality of its decision until satisfaction,
and costs de oficio. Villa’s death eventually led to
the passage in 1995 of RA 8049 (the Anti-Hazing
Law) criminalizing hazing.
GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, Manotok v
v.. Heirs
of Homer L. Barque, March 6, 2012, En Banc
Denying with finality the motions for
reconsideration of its August 24, 2010 decision, the
Supreme Court made final its ruling that the
National Government owns 342,945-square meter
property in Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, Quezon
City fought over by the Manotoks, the Barques, and
the Manahans. GR No. 190293, Fortun v
v.. Pres. Arroyo; GR
v.. Ermita ; GR No.
No. 190294, Dilangalen v
190301, Colmenares v
v.. Pres. Arroyo; GR No.
190302, Loyola v
v.. Pres. Arroyo; GR No. 190307,
Salonga v
v.. Pres. Arroyo ; GR No. 190356,
Mantawil v
v.. Executive Secretary ; GR No.
190380, Monsod v
v.. Ermita, March 20, 2012, En
Banc
The Supreme Court dismissed for being moot
and academic seven consolidated petitions
assailing Presidential Proclamation 1959, issued
on December 4, 2011 by then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, declaring a state of martial
law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the Province of Maguindanao,
except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. The subject proclamation was
issued in the wake of the “Maguindanao
Massacre,” where 57 people were gunned down
on a desolate highway by armed men believed to
be led by the ruling family in Maguindanao, the
Ampatuans. GR No. 175263, Nieto, Jr
Jr.. v
v.. SEC, March 14,
2012, Second Division GR Nos. 147036-37, Pambansang Koalisyon
ng mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawa
sa Niyugan (PKSMMN) v. Executive Secretary;
Amor v
GR No. 14781
1,
v.. Executive
147811,
Secretary, April 10, 2012; En Banc Dismissing the petition filed by former
Philippine Ambassador to Spain Manuel H. Nieto,
Jr., the Supreme Court held that a case becomes The Court reaffirmed its previous
pronouncements that coco-levy funds are public
funds and are in the nature of taxes. It declared 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
Executive Order 312 ( Establishing the
Erap’s Sagip Niyugan Program as an
Emergency Measure to Alleviate the Plight of
Coconut Farmers Adversely Affected by Low
Prices of Copra and Other Coconut Products,
and Providing Funds Therefor) and Executive
Order 313 (Rationalizing the Use of the Coconut
Levy Funds by Constituting a ‘Fund for
Assistance to Coconut Farmers’ as an
Irrevocable Trust Fund and Creating a Coconut
Trust Fund Committee for the Management
Thereof) as unconstitutional for being in
contravention of P.D. 1445 and the Constitution.
GR No. 171
101, Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v
v..
171101,
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council; April 24,
2012
2012, En Banc
The Court denied the Motion to Clarify and
Reconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011
filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI)
and the Motion for Reconsideration/
Clarification filed by Noel Mallari, Julio Suniga,
Supervisory Group of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. and
Windsor Andaya. It also declared the 05 July
2011 Decision, as modified by the 22 November
2011 Resolution and further modified by the
instant Resolution, final and executory.
IN ITS DECISION, THE COURT
RULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
1. In determining the date of “taking,” the
Court voted 8-6 to maintain the ruling fixing
November 21, 1989 as the date of “taking,” the
value of the affected lands to be determined by
the Land Bank of the Philippines and the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);
2. On the propriety of the revocation of the
option of the Farmworker-Beneficiaries (FWBs)to
remain as HLI stockholders, the Court, by
unanimous vote, agreed to reiterate its ruling in
its November 22, 2011 Resolution that the option
granted to the FWBs stays revoked; the government, through the DAR, to pay to HLI
the just compensation for the homelots thus
distributed to the FWBS.
GR No. 164987, Lawyers Against Monopoly and
Poverty (LAMP) v
v.. The Secretary of Budget and
Management, April 24, 2012
2012, En Banc
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the
implementation of the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in Republic
Act 9206 or the General Appropriations Act of 2004.
The Court held that the direct allocation and release
of PDAF to Members of Congress based on their
list of projects did not violate the Constitution and
the laws.
GR No. 191970, Jalosjos v
v.. COMELEC, April
24, 2012, En Banc
The Court held that COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in ruling that Rommel Jalosjos failed
to sufficiently establish his domicile. It ruled that
Jalosjos has met the residency requirement for
Provincial Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.
Moreover, since Jalosjos has already won, the Court
stated it would respect the decision of the people
and resolve all doubts in his favor to give life to the
peoples’ will. illar, April 24, 2012
GR No. 192791, Funa v
v.. V
Villar
2012,
En Banc
The case, although rendered moot and academic
by the resignation of Reynaldo A. Villar, was still
considered by the Court for the guidance of the
bench, the bar and the public. The Court held that
the appointment of Commissioner Villar to the
position of the Chairman of the Commission of
Audit to replace Guillermo Carage was
unconstitutional for violation of Section 1(2), Article
IX (D) of the Constitution. The Court restated its
ruling in Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX (D), to wit: 3. On the propriety of returning to the FWBs
the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare
converted land and of the 80.51-hectare SCTEX
land, the Court unanimously voted to maintain
its ruling to order the payment of the proceeds of
the sale of the said land to the FWBs less the 3%
share, taxes and expenses specified in the fallo
of the November 22, 2011 Resolution; (1) The appointment of members of any of the
three constitutional commissions, after the
expiration of the uneven terms of office of the first
set of commissioners, shall always be for a fixed
term of seven (7) years; an appointment for a lesser
period is void and unconstitutional. The appointing
authority cannot validly shorten the full term of
seven (7) years in case of the expiration of the term
as this will result in the distortion of the rotational
system prescribed by the Constitution. 4. On the payment of just compensation for
the homelots to HLI, the Court, by unanimous
vote, resolved to amend its July 5, 2011 Decision
and November 22, 2011 Resolution by ordering (2) Appointments to vacancies resulting from
certain causes (death, resignation, disability or
impeachment) shall only be for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor, but such 83 84 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES appointments cannot be less than the unexpired
portion as this will likewise disrupt the
staggering of terms laid down under Sec. 1(2), Art.
IX(D).
(3) Members of the Commission, e.g. COA,
COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed for a full
term of seven years and who served the entire
period, are barred from reappointment to any
position in the Commission. Corollarily, the first
appointees in the Commission under the
Constitution are also covered by the prohibition
against reappointment.
(4) A commissioner who resigns after serving in
the Commission for less than seven years is eligible
for an appointment to the position of chairman
for the unexpired portion of the term of the
departing chairman. Such appointment is not
covered by the ban on reappointment, provided
that the aggregate period of the length of service
as commissioner and the unexpired period of the
term of the predecessor will not exceed seven (7)
years and provided further that the vacancy in
the position of chairman resulted from death,
resignation, disability or removal by
impeachment. The Court clarifies that
“reappointment” found in Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D)
means a movement to one and the same office (commissioner to commissioner or chairman to
chairman). On the other hand, an appointment
involving a movement to a different position or
office (commissioner to chairman) would
constitute a new appointment and, hence, not,
in the strict legal sense, a reappointment barred
under the Constitution.
(5) Any member of the Commission cannot be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.
GR No. 189434, Marcos, Jr. v. Republic ;
GR No. 189505, Marcos v. Republic ; April
25, 2012
2012, Second Division
The Court affirmed the April 2, 2009 Decision
of the Sandiganbayan, which granted the
Republic’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
declared all assets and properties of Arelma,
S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E.
Marcos, forfeited in favor of the government.
GR No. 201112, Capalla v. COMELEC; GR
No. 201121, Solidarity for Sovereignty v.
COMELEC ; GR No. 201127, Guingona v.
COMELEC ; GR No. 201413, Tanggulang
Demokrasya, Inc . v. COMELEC , June 13,
2012
2012, En Banc 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the
COMELEC Resolutions regarding the purchase
of Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS)
machines from Smartmatic-TIM and the
Extension Agreement and the Deed of Sale
covering said goods. ordered the Philippine Reclamation Authority to
monitor submission of the province of the
requirements to be issued by DENR-EMBR RVI.
Finally, the Court also ordered the cessation of
the implementation of the reclamation project
until further orders. GR No. 190793, Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago
v. COMELEC; June 19, 2012
2012, En Banc GR No. 200242, Corona v
v.. Senate, July 17,
2012, En Banc The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not
abuse its discretion in denying Magdalo’s
Petition for Registration as a political party, on
the ground of the use of violence and unlawful
means for achieving its goals. Since the group
was granted amnesty, the Court held that it
could file a new Petition and register anew. The Court dismissed, on the ground of mootness,
the petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for injunctive reliefs filed by former Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona on February 8, 2012. The
petition assailed the impeachment case initiated
by the respondent members of the House of
Representatives (HOR) and trial being conducted
by respondent Senate of the Philippines. ellex Group, Inc. v
GR No. 187951, The W
Wellex
v..
Sandiganbayan, June 25, 2012
2012, Second
Division
The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s
September 24, 2008 and April 2, 2009
Resolutions, which included the four hundred
fifty (450) million shares of stock of Waterfront
Philippines Inc. in the forfeiture proceedings
in the plunder case against former President
Joseph E. Estrada.
GR No. 139930, Republic v
v.. Cojuangco, Jr
Jr..,
June 26, 2012, En Banc
The Court denied the Petition of the Republic
and affirmed the May 14, 1999 Memorandum of
the Office of the Ombudsman, which dismissed
the charge of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019
against the respondents on the ground of
prescription.
GR No. 196870, Boracay Foundation, Inc. v
v..
The Province of Aklan, June 26, 2012
2012, En Banc
This case involved the proposed reclamation
of land between Caticlan and Boracay Island for
commercial purposes. The Court partially granted
the petition of Boracay Foundation, and converted
the Temporary Environment Protection Order
(TEPO) it previously issued into a writ of
continuing manda...
View
Full Document
