PNB-REPUBLIC BANK v. SPOUSES JOSE and SALVACION CORDOVA

G.R. No. 169314, 14 March 2008, Third Division, (Nachura, J.)

An essential and logical implication of Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is that the filing of a second notice of appeal from the modified decision is a superfluity, if not a useless ceremony. It, therefore, matters no longer whether that second notice is timely filed or not.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila rendered its decision dismissing the Complaint filed by Petitioner PNB-Republic Bank for the rescission of its Contract of Lease with Respondents Spouses Jose and Salvacion Cordova. The Court, however, granted the counterclaim of Spouses Cordova.

Unsatisfied with the decision, PNB timely filed its first notice of appeal while Spouses Cordova filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC modified its decision and increased the amount of damages awarded to Spouses Cordova. A copy of the modified decision was received by PNB on August 07, 2002 and on August 22, 2002, PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied the Motion on September 30 and a copy of the said order was received by PNB on October 14, 2002. PNB filed its second notice of appeal on October 23, 2002, which was later dismissed by the court.

PNB re-filed its appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Spouses Cordova aver that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that petitioner failed to file its appeal on time. The appellate court dismissed the petition. It held that the first notice of appeal of PNB is invalid and ineffective due to the modified decision of the RTC. It further ruled that the second notice of appeal was not perfected on time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case and in declaring that the first notice of appeal is ineffective and invalid while the second appeal was not perfected on time

HELD:

Petition GRANTED.

Petitioner’s appeal is deemed perfected “as to [it]” when it timely filed its first notice of appeal, following Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Incidentally, this perfected appeal is not docketed with the CA, because the trial court, which was still to resolve respondents’ motion for reconsideration, had not yet transmitted the records of the case to the appellate court. Incumbent, nonetheless, on the part of the RTC is the elevation of the records after a resolution of the merits of respondents’ motion.

Its appeal having been perfected, petitioner did not need to file a second notice of appeal even if the trial court granted, as it did, the other party’s motion for reconsideration and modified the decision to increase the monetary award.

An essential and logical implication of the said rule is that the filing of a second notice of appeal from the modified decision is a superfluity, if not a useless ceremony. It, therefore, matters no longer whether that second notice is timely filed or not. Hence, in this case, petitioner’s filing of a belated second notice of appeal does not affect or foreclose its already perfected appeal.

JUANITO CHAN v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE et. al.

G.R. No. 147065, 14 March 2008, Third Division, (Nachura, J.)

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor’s finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

An Information for illegal selling of prohibited drugs was filed against Petitioner Juanito Chan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Chan, on the other hand, filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice. The petition was dismissed on the ground that there is no reversible error on the findings of the State Prosecutor. A Petition for Certiorari was thereafter filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellate court dismissed the petition in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Crespo v. Mogul which provides that once a case or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the discretion of the court. It further ruled that a Petition for Certiorari cannot be availed for Chan has other existing remedies such as a Motion to Quash or Dismiss.

A Petition for Certiorari was then filed with the Supreme Court. Chan contends that the case of Crespo has already been superseded by Allado v. Diokno. He further contends that a Petition for Certiorari was his speedy and most adequate remedy.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine laid down in Crespo v. Mogul
2. Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari can be availed despite the existence of other remedies

HELD:

Petition DISMISSED.

The case of Crespo still subsists

Contrary to petitioner’s view, Crespo subsists and was not superseded by Allado.

Allado, which was punctuated by inordinate eagerness in the gathering of evidence and in the preliminary investigation, serves as an exception and may not be invoked unless similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. No such circumstances were established in the present case.

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor’s finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

Albeit the findings of the Justice Secretary are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, the Court generally adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, particularly when the said findings are well-supported by the facts as established by the evidence on record. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer’s finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor. Simply stated, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion.

In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA primarily anchored its decision on Crespo, ratiocinating that it is without authority to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the case since the latter had already assumed jurisdiction.

A Petition for Certiorari may still be availed of even if there is available remedy

The CA, likewise, opined that the filing of the petition for certiorari was improper since petitioner still had an available remedy, that is, to file a motion to dismiss or to quash the Information with the trial court. We do not agree. A petition for certiorari may still be availed of even if there is an available remedy, when such remedy does not appear to be plain, speedy, and adequate in the ordinary course of law.

AMOS P. FRANCIA JR., et. al. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MERCAUAYAN

G.R. No. 170432, 24 March 2008, First Division, (Corona, J.)

Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration. The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession.

A Complaint for expropriation was filed by respondent Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan against the property of petitioners Amos Francia, Cecilia Francia and Benjamin Francia. The Municipality of Meycauayan seeks to use the said property in order to establish a common public terminal for all public utility vehicles. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the expropriation was for public purpose and issued an Order of Expropriation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals partially granted the petition. It nullified the Order of Expropriation except with regard to the writ of possession. It upheld the decision of the RTC that in issuance of writ of possession, prior determination of the existence of public purpose is necessary.

ISSUE:

Whether or not prior determination of existence of public purpose is necessary before the issuance of writ of possession

HELD:

Petition denied.

Section 19 of Republic Act 7160 provides:

Section 19. Eminent Domain. ― A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and that such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.

Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration. The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession.

JANTRIZ LIM

By the way, we have a new member. Her name is Jantriz Lim. I want to thank her for accepting our invitation and for committing herself to all the activities of the parish and organization.

WELCOME to COMI! We are looking forward to work with you in spreading the Kingdom of God!

meeting

I met my COMI members this afternoon and I discussed to them our Mission-Vision, Objectives and Rules and Regulations. My heart is filled with gladness because I am seeing concrete changes within our organization. My members are all dedicated to help me bring back the glory of COMI.


During the meeting, I reiterated to my members that our organization should not be a venue for competition. Rather, it should be a venue for unity and cooperation. I want my members to treat each other as brothers and sisters.


Our last activity was the sharing of our AHA Experience. Through that activity, I was able to know more about my members. I am saddened to know the present situation of some of them. They are having financial difficulty and they might stop studying. While hearing their stories, I realized that I am so blessed for my parents can provide me with anything and everything I want.

In silence, I join them in their prayers. I know God will help them surpass all the problems and difficulties that they are facing. God is good, all the time.

I love the Lord

I LOVE THE LORD

REFRAIN:

I love the Lord,

He is filled with compassion.

He turned to me on the day that I called.

From the snares of the dark,

O, Lord, save my life, be my strength.

----

Gracious is the Lord, and just.

Our God is mercy, rest to the weary.

Return my soul to the Lord our God who bids tears away.

I love the Lord. (REFRAIN)

---

How can I repay the Lord for all the goodness

He has shown me?

I will raise the cup of salvation and call on His name.

I love the Lord. (REFRAIN)

---

I shall live my vows to You before Your people,

I am Your servant.

I will offer You my sacrifice of praise and of pray'r.

I love the Lord. (REFRAIN)

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO ALL THE MOMS IN THE WORLD!!!