Bar 2025 Chair’s Digests
AAA261422 v. XXX261422 [November 13, 2023]
In AAA261422 v. XXX261422, the Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari filed by the private complainant assailing the criminal aspect of the case, even without conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). It found that the guideline laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB requiring such conformity does not apply to the present case…
Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. [April 3, 2024]
In Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that verbal abuse and indifferent behavior by an employer, which force an employee to resign, constitute constructive dismissal. The Court emphasized that such hostile actions make working conditions unbearable, leaving the employee no choice but to resign.
Dela Cruz v. Dumasig [December 4, 2023]
In Dela Cruz v. Dumasig, the Supreme Court ruled that the sale between Sps. Dela Cruz and their daughter, Rosalinda, was absolutely simulated. Hence, void. Primarily, in view of Rosalinda’s failure to exercise any act of dominion over the property after the sale. Consequently, the Agreement of Loan with Real Estate Mortgage between Rosalinda and Dumasig is also void, the…
Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil. [January 22, 2024]
The Supreme Court ruled that Fitness First’s personal trainers were regular employees, not independent contractors, due to the company’s control over their work schedules, quotas, and performance standards. The Court ordered the payment of backwages, separation pay, pro-rata 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
Go v. Go and Republic [December 07, 2022]
In Go v. Go and Republic, the Supreme Court upheld the nullification of the marriage of the Spouses Leilani and Hendrick Go under Article 36 of the Family Code. It gave credence to the testimony of both ordinary and expert witnesses in determining the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses.
Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024]
In Intia v. Ferrer, the Supreme Court addressed allegations against Judge Ferrer, including misconduct, business involvement, case delays, and courtroom demeanor. The Court dismissed most charges due to insufficient evidence but fined Judge Ferrer ₱35,000 for violating rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private business activities.
National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024]
In National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Food Authority (NFA) is exempt from paying real property taxes. The Court held that, as a government instrumentality, it is immune from the local governments’ power to tax under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. Moreover, its properties are properties of public dominion. Hence, further…
Ortigas v. Court of Appeals [February 12, 2024]
In Ortigas v. Court of Appeals, a mortgage encumbrance was executed in favor of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest. However, the property was foreclosed and sold on a public auction without their participation. A TCT was issued in favor of the highest bidder, Carredo, upon which a memorandum of encumbrance was annotated. Upon Carredo’s petition, the trial court granted the cancellation of…
PCSO v. DFNN, Inc. [June 30, 2021]
An essential requisite of consolidation is that the actions to be consolidated are pending before the court. A case that was already resolved may no longer be consolidated. “Evident miscalculation of figures” under Section 25 (a), RA 876 means obvious mathematical errors relating to miscalculation that appear on the face of the award. It does not pertain to any allegation of…
People v. Tuazon [May 27, 2024]
In People v. Tuazon, the Supreme Court convicted Nell Jackel Tuazon of qualified trafficking. Tuazon paid an intermediary ₱5,000 to exploit 16-year-old AAA sexually. The Court emphasized that trafficking is consummated upon recruitment or use for exploitation, regardless of the victim’s consent or occurrence of sexual intercourse.
Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023]
The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and…
Romero y Flores v. People [May 29, 2024]
In Romero y Flores v. People, the Supreme Court convicted the accused of rape only, modifying the original charge of kidnapping with rape. The Court ruled that both forcible abduction and rape were proven. However, the accused should be convicted of rape only, while forcible abduction was absorbed.
Spouses Calimlim v. Goño [January 14, 2025]
In Spouses Calimlim v. Goño, the Supreme Court ruled that structures built by the Calimlims on public foreshore land without government approval constituted a public nuisance. These unauthorized constructions obstructed public access and caused environmental harm.
Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People [December 4, 2023]
In Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused is disqualified from plea bargaining for illegal sale of shabu if the crime involves 1.00 grams or above of the said dangerous drugs. However, failure to raise such disqualification in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, may be…
Tapia v. GA2 Pharmaceutical [September 28, 2022]
The Supreme Court ruled that pharmacist Joel Tapia was illegally dismissed by GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. Despite GA2’s claim that the former was a mere probationary employee. The Court gave credence to Tapia’s narration of facts leading to his dismissal, and to the documentary evidence he submitted establishing his employment as GA2’s pharmacist since July 2013. Tapia was awarded backwages, separation…
Tsutsumi v. Republic [April 17, 2023]
In Tsutsumi v. Republic, the Supreme Court recognized a Japanese divorce between a Filipino and Japanese citizen. The Court accepted authenticated documents as sufficient proof of divorce and Japanese law, emphasizing procedural flexibility to ensure substantial justice in family matters.
2025 Case Digests
Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [January 14, 2025]
In Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Supreme Court upheld BSP’s authority to close banks without prior hearing if substantial evidence shows insolvency or potential losses to depositors. The Court ruled that only majority stockholders can challenge such actions within 10 days, ensuring prompt regulatory intervention.
Campbridge Waterproofing Systems, Inc. v. Greenseal Products [M] Sdn. Bhd. [January 22, 2025]
The Supreme Court ruled that Campbridge’s registration of the “GREENSEAL” trademark was invalid. Greenseal Malaysia had prior use of the name globally, including in the Philippines since 2004. The Court emphasized that trade names of nationals from Paris Convention member states are protected without registration.
Empuerto v. Cabrillos [February 5, 2025]
In Empuerto v. Cabrillos, the Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC’s) order containing certain terms compromise agreement between the parents of the child as to the latter’s custody cannot be considered a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody given that the father, Jeffrey, was not served with summons nor given the opportunity to file an answer. The Court…
Green v. Green [February 17, 2025]
In Green v. Green, the Supreme Court declared the marriage between Jeffrey and Rowena Green void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity. Evidence showed her pathological gambling, infidelity, dishonesty, and substantial debts, making her unable to fulfill marital obligations. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity need not be a clinical diagnosis but must be proven through clear acts of dysfunctionality.
Lacida v. Subejano [February 12, 2025]
In Lacida v. Subejano, the Supreme Court dismissed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rejoice S. Subejano, who borrowed money from Megamitch Financial Resources Corporation while serving as its legal counsel. The Court found the transaction fell within exceptions to the prohibition on borrowing from clients under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Lizada v. Tecson [February 18, 2025]
In the case of Lizada vs. Tecson, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson for misappropriating ₱67 million of his clients’ funds from an expropriation case. Tecson claimed the funds were used to expedite proceedings, but the Court found this constituted bribery and violated legal ethics. He was ordered to return the misappropriated amount.
Maitim v. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. [January 15, 2025]
In 2013, Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. (TSTSI) hired Stephanie Maitim and others as nursing aides for employment in Saudi Arabia. However, they were later compelled to sign new contracts reclassifying them as housekeepers with reduced salaries and longer working hours. After completing over three years of service, they were denied repatriation until local authorities intervened. Back in the…
Martin v. Ala [February 5, 2025]
In Martin v. Ala, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala, filed by her former brother-in-law, Denis Guy Martin. The Court found Atty. Ala administratively liable for urging police officers to shoot her nephew during an altercation, violating ethical standards. Additionally, she was reprimanded for using abusive language in legal pleadings. The Court imposed the…
Melocoton v. Pring [January 22, 2025]
In 1987, Leoncio Melocoton married Jennifer Pring while still married to Susan Jimenez. In 2005, he sought to nullify his marriage to Pring, claiming bigamy. The Supreme Court upheld the marriage’s validity, ruling that Melocoton failed to prove his prior marriage was still subsisting during his marriage to Pring.
Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas [January 20, 2025]
In Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas, the Supreme Court ruled that the school breached its contractual duty to provide a safe learning environment when a student was repeatedly punched by classmates during a teacher’s absence. The Court emphasized that educational institutions must ensure student safety and cannot solely rely on the “good father of a family”…
Padayao v. Villafuerte, Jr. [January 15, 2025]
generate a 50-word summary for this article. it is a case digest of a case decided by the supreme court of the Philippines. make the summary easily understandable by students and capture important points. no need to cite the G.R. No. and date of the case. here is the link to the article:
People v. Estregan [February 5, 2025]
In People v. Estregan, the Supreme Court ruled that violations of procurement laws don’t automatically result in a public officer’s conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The prosecution must prove the officer’s role, evident bad faith or gross negligence, and that such actions caused undue injury or unwarranted benefits.
Planters Development Bank v. Heirs of Delos Santos [January 15, 2025]
In Planters Development Bank v. Heirs of Delos Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that despite the borrowers’ waiver of demand in the promissory note, the bank was still required to provide personal notice before initiating extrajudicial foreclosure. Failure to do so invalidated the foreclosure proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper notification to borrowers. Notwithstanding, the High Court upheld the validity…
Spouses Calimlim v. Goño [January 14, 2025]
In Spouses Calimlim v. Goño, the Supreme Court ruled that structures built by the Calimlims on public foreshore land without government approval constituted a public nuisance. These unauthorized constructions obstructed public access and caused environmental harm.
2024 Case Digests
Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. [April 3, 2024]
In Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that verbal abuse and indifferent behavior by an employer, which force an employee to resign, constitute constructive dismissal. The Court emphasized that such hostile actions make working conditions unbearable, leaving the employee no choice but to resign.
Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil. [January 22, 2024]
The Supreme Court ruled that Fitness First’s personal trainers were regular employees, not independent contractors, due to the company’s control over their work schedules, quotas, and performance standards. The Court ordered the payment of backwages, separation pay, pro-rata 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024]
In Intia v. Ferrer, the Supreme Court addressed allegations against Judge Ferrer, including misconduct, business involvement, case delays, and courtroom demeanor. The Court dismissed most charges due to insufficient evidence but fined Judge Ferrer ₱35,000 for violating rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private business activities.
National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024]
In National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Food Authority (NFA) is exempt from paying real property taxes. The Court held that, as a government instrumentality, it is immune from the local governments’ power to tax under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. Moreover, its properties are properties of public dominion. Hence, further…
Ortigas v. Court of Appeals [February 12, 2024]
In Ortigas v. Court of Appeals, a mortgage encumbrance was executed in favor of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest. However, the property was foreclosed and sold on a public auction without their participation. A TCT was issued in favor of the highest bidder, Carredo, upon which a memorandum of encumbrance was annotated. Upon Carredo’s petition, the trial court granted the cancellation of…
Romero y Flores v. People [May 29, 2024]
In Romero y Flores v. People, the Supreme Court convicted the accused of rape only, modifying the original charge of kidnapping with rape. The Court ruled that both forcible abduction and rape were proven. However, the accused should be convicted of rape only, while forcible abduction was absorbed.
Rosal v. Commission on Elections [October 22, 2024]
The Supreme Court disqualified Albay Governor Noel Rosal and Legazpi City Mayor Carmen Rosal for violating election laws. They were found guilty of releasing public funds during the election campaign period, which is prohibited under the Omnibus Election Code. This decision highlights the importance of compliance with election regulations to ensure fairness.
Archive
A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals [October 30, 1998]
In A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a contract labeled as a “pacto de retro sale” was actually an equitable mortgage. The stipulation for automatic transfer of property ownership upon default was deemed a pactum commissorium, which is prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
AAA261422 v. XXX261422 [November 13, 2023]
In AAA261422 v. XXX261422, the Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari filed by the private complainant assailing the criminal aspect of the case, even without conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). It found that the guideline laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB requiring such conformity does not apply to the present case…
Abilla vs. Gobonseng [August 6, 2002]
In Abilla v. Gobonseng, the Supreme Court held that a seller who consistently claims a transaction is an equitable mortgage cannot later exercise the right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the Civil Code after the contract is judicially declared a pacto de retro sale.
Abrigo vs. de Vera [June 21, 2004]
In Abrigo vs. De Vera, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that in cases of double sales, the buyer who first registers the property in good faith with the proper registry has the superior right. Since De Vera registered the property under the Torrens system before the Abrigos, her claim was upheld.
Adelfa Properties, Inc vs. Court of Appeals [January 25, 1995]
In Adelfa Properties, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an “Exclusive Option to Purchase” agreement was actually a contract to sell, not an option contract. The Court emphasized that ownership transfers only upon full payment, and the buyer’s failure to pay justified the seller’s rescission of the contract.
Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [January 14, 2025]
In Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Supreme Court upheld BSP’s authority to close banks without prior hearing if substantial evidence shows insolvency or potential losses to depositors. The Court ruled that only majority stockholders can challenge such actions within 10 days, ensuring prompt regulatory intervention.
Argente vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co. [March 19, 1928]
In Argente v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance contract can be rescinded if the insured conceals material facts, even unintentionally. The Court emphasized that all relevant information must be disclosed to the insurer to ensure the validity of the policy.
Aznar vs. Yapdiangco [March 31, 1965]
In Aznar v. Yapdiangco, the Supreme Court ruled that the original owner, Santos, who was unlawfully deprived of his car, retains the right to recover it from Aznar, a buyer in good faith. Under Article 559 of the Civil Code, ownership remains with the original owner if the property was stolen.
Banda vs. Ermita [April 20, 2010]
In Banda vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to amend Executive Orders concerning executive agencies, affirming the validity of Executive Order No. 378, which removed the National Printing Office’s exclusive jurisdiction over government printing services. The Court found no violation of employees’ security of tenure.
Belgica vs. Ochoa [November 19, 2013]
The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional due to legislators’ post-enactment involvement in fund allocation, violating the separation of powers. The Court emphasized that only the Executive branch should implement laws, reinforcing the constitutional boundaries between legislative and executive functions.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission [December 7, 2010]
The Supreme Court invalidated the Philippine Truth Commission’s creation, ruling it unconstitutional due to its exclusive focus on investigating the previous administration, which violated the equal protection clause. The Court emphasized that while the President can establish fact-finding bodies, these must operate within constitutional boundaries.
Calleja vs. Executive Secretary [December 7, 2021]
In Calleja v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court addressed challenges to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The Court upheld most provisions but struck down the proviso “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm” in Section 4, deeming it unconstitutional for being overbroad and infringing on freedom of expression.
Campbridge Waterproofing Systems, Inc. v. Greenseal Products [M] Sdn. Bhd. [January 22, 2025]
The Supreme Court ruled that Campbridge’s registration of the “GREENSEAL” trademark was invalid. Greenseal Malaysia had prior use of the name globally, including in the Philippines since 2004. The Court emphasized that trade names of nationals from Paris Convention member states are protected without registration.
Canilang vs. Court of Appeals [June 17, 1993]
In Canilang v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s failure to disclose prior medical consultations constitutes material concealment, allowing the insurer to rescind the policy. The Court emphasized that concealment need not be intentional; even unintentional omissions can void the contract.
Carbonnell vs. Court of Appeals [January 26, 1976]
In Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of immovable property. The Court ruled that the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith has the superior right. Since Carbonell registered her adverse claim before Infante’s registration, and acted in good faith, she was declared the rightful owner.
Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [June 5, 1989]
In Cathay Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that insurers must pay claims within 90 days after the insured submits proof of loss. Unreasonable delays make insurers liable for double interest on the claim amount. The Court upheld the insured’s right to timely payment and penalties for insurer delays.
Cavite Development Bank vs. Lim [February 1, 2000]
In Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller must own the property at the time of ownership transfer. Here, the bank’s sale was void because it never acquired valid title due to a defective foreclosure process, highlighting the importance of due diligence in property transactions.
CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [January 30, 1970]
In CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a driver’s license, appearing valid on its face, is presumed genuine. The burden of proving its invalidity lies with the insurer. Since the insurer failed to disprove the driver’s license validity, the claim was upheld.
Cebu State College of Science and Technology vs. Misterio [June 17, 2015]
In Cebu State College of Science and Technology v. Misterio, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to repurchase in a pacto de retro sale, contingent on a suspensive condition, must be exercised within four years from the condition’s occurrence or ten years from the contract’s execution, whichever comes first.
Chrysler Philippines Corporation vs. CA and Sambok Motors Co. [December 19, 1984]
In Chrysler Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Sambok Motors Co., the Supreme Court held that if a seller fails to deliver goods to the buyer as agreed, the seller bears the risk of loss. Therefore, the seller cannot demand payment for undelivered goods.
Colinares vs. Court of Appeals [September 5, 2000]
In Colinares v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that the transaction between petitioners and the bank was a simple loan, not a trust receipt agreement. The petitioners had already acquired ownership of the construction materials before securing a loan, indicating the absence of a trust receipt relationship.
Commissioner vs. Engineering Equipment & Supply Company [June 30, 1975]
In Commissioner vs. Engineering Equipment & Supply Company, the Supreme Court of the Philippines determined that Engineering Equipment & Supply Company was a contractor, not a manufacturer, because it designed and installed custom air-conditioning systems per client specifications. Consequently, the company was subject to a 3% contractor’s tax instead of a higher manufacturer’s sales tax.
Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals [January 17, 2005]
In Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that when two sales involve the same property but are executed by different sellers, the principle of “he who is first in time is preferred in right” applies. The Court emphasized that a seller cannot convey what they do not own, and subsequent buyers must…
Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Co. [March 28, 1969]
In Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., the Supreme Court ruled that the Manila Railroad Company was not negligent in a collision where Ralph Corliss’ jeep collided with a locomotive. The Court emphasized that individuals must exercise caution at railroad crossings, and failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Cruz vs. Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation [May 27, 1968]
In Cruz v. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 1484 of the Civil Code, if a seller forecloses on a chattel mortgage for a buyer’s default, they cannot pursue additional remedies, such as foreclosing on a real estate mortgage provided as extra security.
Dao Heng Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Laigo [November 20, 2008]
In Dao Heng Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Laigo, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a verbal agreement for dacion en pago (debt settlement by property transfer) is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds without written consent from both parties. The Court emphasized that such agreements must meet the formal requirements to be legally binding.
De la Cruz vs. The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. [June 30, 1966]
In De la Cruz v. The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the accidental death of Eduardo de la Cruz during a boxing match was covered by his insurance policy. The Court emphasized that unforeseen events during voluntary activities can be considered accidents under insurance contracts.
De Leon v. PLDT [October 6, 2021]
In De Leon v. PLDT, the Supreme Court upheld PLDT’s redemption of preferred shares, ruling it lawful and compliant with the Constitution’s foreign ownership limits for public utilities. The Court also noted that the petitioner lacked sufficient interest to challenge PLDT’s corporate actions.
Dela Cruz v. Dumasig [December 4, 2023]
In Dela Cruz v. Dumasig, the Supreme Court ruled that the sale between Sps. Dela Cruz and their daughter, Rosalinda, was absolutely simulated. Hence, void. Primarily, in view of Rosalinda’s failure to exercise any act of dominion over the property after the sale. Consequently, the Agreement of Loan with Real Estate Mortgage between Rosalinda and Dumasig is also void, the…
Delta Motors vs. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng [September 2, 1992]
In Delta Motors v. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng, the Supreme Court ruled that installment payments in a conditional sale can be treated as rental payments if specified in the contract. However, once the seller opts for rescission and repossession, they cannot also demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative,…
EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. vs. Santos [April 26, 1990]
In EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. v. Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that EDCA’s sale of books to an impostor was valid despite payment with dishonored checks. Ownership transferred upon delivery, as there was no agreement retaining ownership until full payment. Thus, EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books.
Edillon vs. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. [September 30, 1982]
In Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, meaning any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. The Court emphasized that insurers must clearly and explicitly state any exceptions or limitations to coverage within the policy.
Empuerto v. Cabrillos [February 5, 2025]
In Empuerto v. Cabrillos, the Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC’s) order containing certain terms compromise agreement between the parents of the child as to the latter’s custody cannot be considered a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody given that the father, Jeffrey, was not served with summons nor given the opportunity to file an answer. The Court…
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety [November 28, 1956]
In Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety’s obligations are transmissible to heirs upon death. The Court allowed Luzon Surety’s contingent claims against Hemady’s estate, emphasizing that such obligations are not strictly personal and thus pass to successors.
Eternal Gardens Memorial vs. The Philippine American Life Insurance Co. (Philamlife) [April 9, 2008]
In Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Philippine American Life Insurance Co., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that an insurer’s inaction and acceptance of premiums can imply approval of an insurance application, making the insurer liable for claims. The Court emphasized that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be interpreted in favor of the insured.
FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. vs. Sps. Baylon [June 29, 2011]
In FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Spouses Baylon, the Supreme Court ruled that the registered owner of a vehicle, even if leased to another party, is directly and primarily responsible for damages caused by the vehicle. This liability exists regardless of any exemption clauses in the lease contract.
FGU Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [March 31, 2005]
In FGU Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle owner is not liable for damages caused by a lessee in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, leading to case dismissal.
Filipinas Life Assurance vs. Nava [May 20, 1966]
In Filipinas Life Assurance Co. v. Nava, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that an insurer’s refusal to grant a policy loan, as stipulated in the insurance contract, entitles the insured to rescind the contract and receive a full refund of premiums paid.
Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989]
In Filipino Merchants Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that under an “all risks” insurance policy, the insured only needs to prove the fact of loss or damage. The burden then shifts to the insurer to demonstrate that the loss was due to an excepted peril. In this case, the insurer failed to prove any exception,…
Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Producer’s Bank [May 23, 1995]
In Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Producers Bank, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a bank’s insurance policy did not cover losses from a robbery involving personnel supplied by third-party agencies, as they were considered the bank’s authorized representatives.
Francisco vs. Boiser [May 31, 2000]
In Francisco v. Boiser, the Supreme Court held that under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, the co-owner-vendor must notify other co-owners of a sale for the redemption period to commence. Notification by the buyer is insufficient. However, actual knowledge, such as receiving a summons, can trigger the redemption period.
Funa vs. Ermita [February 11, 2010]
In Funa vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that Department of Transportation and Communications Undersecretary Maria Elena Bautista’s concurrent designation as Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority violated the constitutional prohibition against holding multiple government positions, as it was not an ex officio role.
Gatchalian Realty, Inc. vs. Angeles [November 27, 2013]
In Gatchalian Realty, Inc. v. Angeles, the Supreme Court ruled that for a seller to validly cancel a contract under the Maceda Law, they must provide a notarized notice of cancellation and refund the buyer’s cash surrender value. Failure to refund invalidates the cancellation, allowing the buyer to retain rights over the property.
Go v. Go and Republic [December 07, 2022]
In Go v. Go and Republic, the Supreme Court upheld the nullification of the marriage of the Spouses Leilani and Hendrick Go under Article 36 of the Family Code. It gave credence to the testimony of both ordinary and expert witnesses in determining the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses.
Gonzales vs. Macaraig [November 19, 1990]
In Gonzales vs. Macaraig, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to veto specific provisions in an appropriations bill, including conditions or restrictions, without vetoing the entire bill. This decision affirmed the President’s line-item veto power as a check on legislative appropriations.
Green v. Green [February 17, 2025]
In Green v. Green, the Supreme Court declared the marriage between Jeffrey and Rowena Green void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity. Evidence showed her pathological gambling, infidelity, dishonesty, and substantial debts, making her unable to fulfill marital obligations. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity need not be a clinical diagnosis but must be proven through clear acts of dysfunctionality.
Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co. [August 10, 1918]
In Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., the Supreme Court held that, absent fraud, the valuation stated in an insurance policy is conclusive between the parties. The insurer’s agent completed the application, and the insured did not misrepresent the automobile’s value or ownership. Therefore, the insurer was liable for the loss.
In re Petition for Judicial Clemency of Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. [December 8, 2008]
In In re Petition for Judicial Clemency of Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., the Supreme Court denied Judge Romillo’s request for reinstatement and retirement benefits, emphasizing its exclusive authority over judicial discipline and the inapplicability of executive clemency to judicial officials.
Jarque vs. Smith Bell & Co. [November 11, 1930]
In Jarque vs. Smith Bell & Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurer is liable for general average contributions, even if the policy covers only “absolute total loss.” The Court emphasized that such liability arises from a quasi-contract implied by law, benefiting all parties with an interest in the vessel or cargo.
Jestra Development and Management Corp vs. Pacifico [January 30, 2007]
In Jestra Development and Management Corp. v. Pacifico, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Maceda Law, a buyer who has paid less than two years of installments is entitled to a 60-day grace period to settle overdue payments. Failure to pay within this period allows the seller to cancel the contract after proper notice.
K.S. Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Co. [March 31, 191]
In K.S. Young v. Midland Textile Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that storing hazardous goods, like fireworks, in an insured premises violated the insurance policy’s terms. This breach justified the insurer’s denial of the claim, even if the stored items didn’t directly cause the fire.
Keppel Cebu Shipyard vs. Pioneer Insurance [September 18, 2012]
In Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer Insurance, the Supreme Court found both Keppel and WG&A equally negligent for a fire on M/V Superferry 3. The Court upheld the validity of a contract clause limiting Keppel’s liability to ₱50 million, emphasizing that contracts of adhesion are enforceable unless the weaker party is deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.
Keppel Cebu Shipyard vs. Pioneer Insurance [September 25, 2009]
In Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer Insurance, the Supreme Court held both Keppel and WG&A equally negligent for a fire on M/V Superferry 3. The Court upheld a contract clause limiting Keppel’s liability to ₱50 million, emphasizing that such limitations are valid if both parties had the opportunity to negotiate terms.
Lacida v. Subejano [February 12, 2025]
In Lacida v. Subejano, the Supreme Court dismissed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rejoice S. Subejano, who borrowed money from Megamitch Financial Resources Corporation while serving as its legal counsel. The Court found the transaction fell within exceptions to the prohibition on borrowing from clients under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Lansang vs. Garcia [December 11, 1971]
In Lansang vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary can review the factual basis of the President’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure it meets constitutional requirements, affirming the system of checks and balances among government branches.
Lawyer’s Cooperative vs. Tabora [April 30, 1965]
In Lawyer’s Cooperative v. Tabora, the Supreme Court held that when a buyer receives goods but the seller retains title to secure payment, the risk of loss transfers to the buyer upon delivery. Therefore, the buyer is liable for the remaining balance even if the goods are later destroyed.
Lea Mer Industries vs. Malayan Insurance [September 30, 2005]
In Lea Mer Industries vs. Malayan Insurance, the Supreme Court held that Lea Mer, as a common carrier, was liable for the loss of cargo when its vessel sank during a typhoon. The Court emphasized that common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence and cannot solely attribute losses to fortuitous events without sufficient proof.
Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Gervacio [October 27, 1939]
In Levy Hermanos, Inc. v. Gervacio, the Supreme Court ruled that a sale with an initial payment and a promissory note for the balance is a straight-term sale, not an installment sale. Therefore, the vendor can collect the unpaid balance after repossession, as the protections for installment sales do not apply.
Lizada v. Tecson [February 18, 2025]
In the case of Lizada vs. Tecson, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson for misappropriating ₱67 million of his clients’ funds from an expropriation case. Tecson claimed the funds were used to expedite proceedings, but the Court found this constituted bribery and violated legal ethics. He was ordered to return the misappropriated amount.
Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc. [October 8, 2003]
In the case of Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc., the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an employee’s resignation must be voluntary. If coerced, it is considered constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and back wages. The Court emphasized the employer’s burden to prove the resignation’s voluntariness.
Lopez vs. Filipinas Compania De Seguros [April 30, 1966]
In Lopez vs. Filipinas, the Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner doesn’t stop the 12-month prescriptive period for insurance claims. Only a court action can do this. Since Lopez filed in court after the period lapsed, his claim was barred.
Macalintal vs. COMELEC [July 10, 2003]
In Macalintal vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, allowing Filipinos abroad to vote without meeting the residency requirement. However, it ruled that only Congress can canvass votes and proclaim winners for President and Vice President, not COMELEC.
Maitim v. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. [January 15, 2025]
In 2013, Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. (TSTSI) hired Stephanie Maitim and others as nursing aides for employment in Saudi Arabia. However, they were later compelled to sign new contracts reclassifying them as housekeepers with reduced salaries and longer working hours. After completing over three years of service, they were denied repatriation until local authorities intervened. Back in the…
Malayan Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [September 26, 1988]
In this case, Sio Choy’s jeep, insured by Malayan Insurance for own damage and third-party liability, collided with a bus, causing injuries to passenger Vallejos. The Supreme Court ruled that both the insured (Sio Choy) and the insurer (Malayan Insurance) are solidarily liable to the victim, with the insurer entitled to reimbursement from the negligent third party’s employer, San Leon…
Martin v. Ala [February 5, 2025]
In Martin v. Ala, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala, filed by her former brother-in-law, Denis Guy Martin. The Court found Atty. Ala administratively liable for urging police officers to shoot her nephew during an altercation, violating ethical standards. Additionally, she was reprimanded for using abusive language in legal pleadings. The Court imposed the…
Mate vs. Court of Appeals [May 21, 1998]
In Mate vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the validity of a deed of sale with the right to repurchase, despite the buyer’s checks being dishonored. The Court clarified that failure of consideration, such as dishonored checks, does not invalidate a contract but provides grounds for legal action to recover the owed amount.
Melocoton v. Pring [January 22, 2025]
In 1987, Leoncio Melocoton married Jennifer Pring while still married to Susan Jimenez. In 2005, he sought to nullify his marriage to Pring, claiming bigamy. The Supreme Court upheld the marriage’s validity, ruling that Melocoton failed to prove his prior marriage was still subsisting during his marriage to Pring.
Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas [January 20, 2025]
In Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas, the Supreme Court ruled that the school breached its contractual duty to provide a safe learning environment when a student was repeatedly punched by classmates during a teacher’s absence. The Court emphasized that educational institutions must ensure student safety and cannot solely rely on the “good father of a family”…
National Power Corporation vs. CA and Rayo [May 21, 1993]
In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Rayo, the Supreme Court held NPC liable for damages caused by releasing water from Angat Dam during Typhoon Kading. The Court ruled that NPC’s negligence, despite warnings of the typhoon, was the proximate cause of the flooding and resulting damages.
New Life Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, Equitable Insurance Corp., Reliance Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. and Western Guaranty Corp. [March 31, 199]
In New Life Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that failing to disclose existing insurance policies, as required by the “Other Insurance Clause,” voids claims under those policies. The Court emphasized that clear policy terms must be adhered to, and the insured’s knowledge of other policies is irrelevant.
Ng vs. Asian Crusader [May 30, 1983]
In Ng v. Asian Crusader Life Assurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that for an insurer to rescind a policy due to misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must be both material and fraudulent. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving such misrepresentation lies with the insurer.
Nonato vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [November 22, 1985]
In Nonato v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court ruled that when a seller repossesses a vehicle due to the buyer’s default on installment payments, it effectively cancels the sale. Consequently, the seller cannot demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative.
Norkis Distribution, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [February 7, 1991]
In Norkis Distribution, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that without actual or constructive delivery, ownership—and thus the risk of loss—remains with the seller. Despite issuing a sales invoice and registering the motorcycle in the buyer’s name, Norkis retained ownership when the vehicle was destroyed.
Northern Motors Inc. vs. Sapinoso [May 29, 1970]
In Northern Motors Inc. v. Sapinoso, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Recto Law, a seller is barred from recovering the unpaid balance of the purchase price only after an actual foreclosure sale of the chattel. Mere filing of a replevin action does not preclude accepting payments from the buyer.
Ocampo vs. Medialdea [November 08, 2016]
In Ocampo vs. Medialdea, the Supreme Court upheld President Duterte’s directive to inter former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, ruling it did not violate the Constitution or laws. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the decision.
Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC [November 14, 1994]
In Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 7641, which grants retirement pay to employees without a retirement plan, applies retroactively to existing employment contracts. This interpretation favors workers, ensuring financial security upon retirement, even if no prior agreement existed.
Pacific Banking vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1988]
In Pacific Banking v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of co-insurances by the original insured, Paramount, violated the policy’s conditions and invalidated the contract. The Court also emphasized that Pacific’s failure to submit a formal proof of loss before filing a lawsuit barred its claim.
Padayao v. Villafuerte, Jr. [January 15, 2025]
generate a 50-word summary for this article. it is a case digest of a case decided by the supreme court of the Philippines. make the summary easily understandable by students and capture important points. no need to cite the G.R. No. and date of the case. here is the link to the article:
Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines [July 25, 2017]
In Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is not constitutionally required to convene in joint session following a presidential declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, unless it intends to revoke such proclamation.
PCI Leasing vs. Giraffe-X-Creative [July 12, 2007]
In PCI Leasing vs. Giraffe-X Creative, the Supreme Court of the Philippines determined that a finance lease, despite lacking an explicit purchase option, was effectively a sale with an option to buy. Consequently, under the Recto Law, the lessor cannot both repossess the property and demand payment of unpaid installments.
PCSO v. DFNN, Inc. [June 30, 2021]
An essential requisite of consolidation is that the actions to be consolidated are pending before the court. A case that was already resolved may no longer be consolidated. “Evident miscalculation of figures” under Section 25 (a), RA 876 means obvious mathematical errors relating to miscalculation that appear on the face of the award. It does not pertain to any allegation of…
Pelaez v. Auditor General [December 24, 1965]
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s creation of municipalities via executive orders was unconstitutional, as this legislative power cannot be delegated without clear standards. The Court emphasized that establishing municipalities is a legislative function requiring explicit guidelines to prevent separation of powers violations.
People v. Estregan [February 5, 2025]
In People v. Estregan, the Supreme Court ruled that violations of procurement laws don’t automatically result in a public officer’s conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The prosecution must prove the officer’s role, evident bad faith or gross negligence, and that such actions caused undue injury or unwarranted benefits.
People v. Tuazon [May 27, 2024]
In People v. Tuazon, the Supreme Court convicted Nell Jackel Tuazon of qualified trafficking. Tuazon paid an intermediary ₱5,000 to exploit 16-year-old AAA sexually. The Court emphasized that trafficking is consummated upon recruitment or use for exploitation, regardless of the victim’s consent or occurrence of sexual intercourse.
People vs. Salle, Jr. [December 4, 1995]
In People vs. Salle, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that a conditional pardon cannot be granted to an accused while their appeal is pending, as the conviction is not yet final. This ensures the separation of powers, preventing executive interference in judicial matters.
Philamlife vs. Auditor [January 18, 1968]
In Philamlife vs. Auditor, the Supreme Court ruled that reinsurance treaties are contracts for insurance, not of insurance. Therefore, obligations to remit premiums become fixed only upon executing specific reinsurance cessions. Consequently, Philamlife’s remittances were subject to the Margin Law’s fees, as the treaty lacked a binding obligation for premium payments.
Philippine Home Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. [June 20, 1996]
In Philippine Home Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court held that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo caused by fire if the fire resulted from the carrier’s negligence. The Court emphasized that fire is not considered a natural disaster exempting the carrier from liability, especially when negligence is involved.
Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [July 28, 1989]
In this case, Pioneer Insurance paid a bond for Jacob Lim’s aircraft purchase and sought reimbursement from Lim and his co-indemnitors. However, since Pioneer had already recovered the amount from its reinsurer, the Supreme Court ruled that only the reinsurer could claim subrogation rights, dismissing Pioneer’s case.
Pioneer vs. Yap [December 19, 1974]
In Pioneer Insurance v. Yap, the Supreme Court ruled that Pioneer was not liable for the fire insurance claim due to Yap’s failure to disclose additional insurance policies, violating the policy’s terms. The Court also emphasized that the insurer was not required to waive the endorsement of co-insurance, as there was no proof of substitution.
Planters Development Bank v. Heirs of Delos Santos [January 15, 2025]
In Planters Development Bank v. Heirs of Delos Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that despite the borrowers’ waiver of demand in the promissory note, the bank was still required to provide personal notice before initiating extrajudicial foreclosure. Failure to do so invalidated the foreclosure proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper notification to borrowers. Notwithstanding, the High Court upheld the validity…
Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023]
The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and…
Prudential vs. Equinox [September 13, 2007]
In Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Equinox Land Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety is solidarily liable with the principal obligor. Equinox terminated its contract with J’Marc Construction due to violations and delays. Prudential, as J’Marc’s surety, was held equally responsible for the obligations.
Puyat vs. Arco Amusement Co. [June 20, 1941]
In Puyat vs. Arco Amusement Co., the Supreme Court clarified that the transaction was a contract of sale, not an agency. Ownership transferred upon delivery of goods, with a commission for sales beyond a specified amount. The Court emphasized that obligations under a sale differ fundamentally from those in an agency agreement.
Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada [October 14, 2005]
In Republic v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that mutual life insurance companies operating as bona fide cooperatives are exempt from paying taxes on life insurance premiums and documentary stamps, even without registration with the Cooperative Development Authority.
Roberts vs. Papio [February 9, 2007]
In Roberts vs. Papio, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that a contract labeled as an absolute sale cannot later be claimed as an equitable mortgage if the seller initially acknowledged it as a pacto de retro sale. The Court emphasized that judicial admissions prevent parties from changing their stance during proceedings.
Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante [April 11, 2012]
In Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Church’s sale of a property to Pante was valid, as there was no misrepresentation to invalidate the contract. The Court emphasized that actual occupancy was not a necessary qualification for the sale, and Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway constituted possession in good…
Roman vs. Grimalt [April 11, 1906]
In Roman v. Grimalt, the Supreme Court held that a sale isn’t perfected without mutual agreement on the object and price. Here, the seller couldn’t prove ownership of the schooner, preventing contract perfection. Consequently, the seller bore the loss when the vessel was destroyed before delivery.
Rosaroso vs. Doria [June 19, 2013]
In Rosaroso vs. Doria, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of property. The Court upheld the validity of the first sale to Luis Rosaroso’s children, citing the presumption of sufficient consideration. It declared the subsequent sale to Meridian Realty void, noting that Meridian was not a buyer in good faith, as it failed to investigate the…
Santos v. Santos [June 16, 2021]
The Supreme Court ruled that a donation of property between spouses during marriage is void under the Family Code. In Santos v. Santos, the donated property was considered part of their community property. This case emphasizes the prohibition on such donations to protect marital property and preserve equality between spouses.
Sarmiento vs. Mison [December 17, 1987]
In Sarmiento vs. Mison, the Supreme Court ruled that the President can appoint the Commissioner of Customs without needing the Commission on Appointments’ approval, as the position is not among those requiring such consent under the Constitution.
Can’t find a case digest? Send a request
Your request has been submitted successfully!
There has been some error while submitting the form. Please verify all form fields again.