Creemos que todo consiste en hardware

FACTS:

In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a pilot by the Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In 1982 however, SAL was hit by recession and so it had to lay off some employees. Laureano was one of them. Laureano asked for reconsideration but it was not granted. Aggrieved, Laureano filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against SAL. But in 1987, he withdrew the labor case and instead filed a civil case for damages due to illegal termination of contract against SAL. Laureano filed the case here in the Philippines. SAL moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied. On trial, SAL alleged that the termination of Laureano is valid pursuant to Singaporean law.

The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL appealed the case raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction, non applicability of Philippine laws, and estoppel, among others. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Singaporean Law is applicable to this case.

HELD:

No. The specific Singaporean Law which holds valid the dismissal of Laureano is not proved in court. As such, the trial court cannot make a determination if the termination is indeed valid under Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. SAL has the burden of proof. SAL failed to prove such law hence Philippine law shall apply. However, the case must be dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Under our laws, all money claims arising from employer-employee relationships must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Laureano’s cause of action accrued in 1982 when he was

terminated but he only filed the money claim in 1987 or more than three years from 1982. Hence he is already barred by prescription.

298. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v CA 334 SCRA 305

FACTS:

Banco Fil sold to Tala Realty 4 lots in Iloilo. Tala then leased the properties back to Banco Fil for a monthly rental of P21,000 for a period of 20 years. Tala demanded payment for rentals but Banco Fil failed to comply with their obligation so Tala filed numerous ejectment suits against Banco Fil. Incidentally, Banco Fil also filed 16 other complaints for recovery of real property to which Tala filed a Motion to Dismiss (MtD). The trial court granted the MtD and denied Banco Fil’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Banco Fil, instead of filing an appeal, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion because it did not comply with the constitutional mandate on the form for decisions. CA dismissed the certiorari stating that Rule 65 may be granted only when there’s no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.

Banco Fil received the copy of the CA’s decision and filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which the CA again denied. Banco Fil filed another petition for certiorari under Rule 65 this time with the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether appeal to SC under Rule 65 is proper. HELD:

NO. SC immediately dismissed petition for the violation of the basic rules of Remedial Law. The proper remedy from the CA’s adverse resolutions to the SC is an ordinary appeal via petition for review under Rule 45.

Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. Also certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.

On the other hand, Rule 45 as a petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment which include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.

In the case, Banco Fil’s allegations that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion were only bare allegations since Banco Fil even admitted that the CA labored out a 33-page rationale on the decision of their case, thus, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.

Note that, the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Hence, the availability to Banco Fil of the remedy under Rule 45 effectively foreclosed its right to resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Also note that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of appeal. In the case, Banco Fil’s recourse under Rule 65 cannot be taken, because when it filed a petition for certiorari to the SC, the reglementary period for filing a petition for review under Rule 45 to the CA had already lapsed.

299. VDA. DE DEL GADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 363 SCRA 58

FACTS:

Carlos Delgado was the absolute owner of a parcel of land with an area of 692,549 square meter situated in the Municipality of Catarman Samar. Carlos Delgado granted and conveyed by way of donation with quitclaim all rights, title, interest claim and demand over a portion of land with an area of 165,000 square meter in favor of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The acceptance was then made to President Quezon in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. The Deed of Donation was executed with a condition that the said land will be used for the formation of the National Defense of the Philippines. The said parcel of land then covered by the Torrens System of the Philippines and was registered in the name of Commonwealth of the Philippines for a period of 40 years. The land was registered under TCT 0-2539-160 in favor of the Commonwealth however without any annotation.

Upon declaration of independence, the Commonwealth was replaced by Republic of the Philippines which took over the subject land and turned over to Civil Aeronautics Administration, later named Bureau of Air Transportation Office. The said agency utilizes the said land a domestic airport.

Jose Delgado filed a petition for reconveyance for a violation of the condition. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff Delgado. But the CA reversed the said decision because of prescription. The petitioner filed only before 24 years o discovery which the law only requires 10 years of filing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner’s action for reconveyance is already barred by prescription. RULING:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals because the time of filing has been prescribed. Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code on

Prescription based on written contracts, the filing of action for reconveyance is within 10 years from the time the condition in the Deed of Donation was violated. The petitioner herein filed only 24 years in the first action and 43 years in the second filing of the 2nd _action.

The action for reconveyance on the alleged excess of 33, 607 square meter mistakenly included in the title was also prescribed Article 1456 of the Civil Code states, if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefits of the person from whom the property comes, if within 10 years such action for reconveyance has not been executed.

300. MAESTRADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 327 SCRA 678

FACTS:

These consolidated cases involve Lot No. 5872 and the rights of the contending parties thereto. The lot has an area of 57.601 sq.m. and is registered in the name of the deceased spouses Ramon and Rosario Chaves. The spouses died intestate in 1943 and 1944, respectively. They were survived by six heirs. To settle the estate of said spouse, Angel Chaves, one of the heirs, initiated intestate proceedings and was appointed administrator of said estates in the process. An inventory of the estates was made and thereafter, the heirs agreed on a project partition. The court approved the partition but a copy of said decision was missing. Nonetheless, the estate was divided among the heirs. Subsequently, in 1956, the partition case effected and the respective shares of the heirs were delivered to them.

Significantly, Lot No.5872 was not included in a number of documents. Parties offered different explanations as to the omission of said lot in the documents. Petitioners maintain the existence of an oral partition agreement entered into by all heirs after the death of their parents. To set things right, petitioners then prepared a quitclaim to confirm the alleged oral agreement. Respondents dispute voluntariness of their consent to the quitclaims.

Six years after the execution of the quitclaims, respondents discovered that indeed subject lot was still a common property in the name of the deceased spouses. Eventually, an action for Quieting of Title was filed by petitioners on December 22, 1983.

The trial court considered Lot No. 5872 as still a common property and therefore must be divided into six parts, there being six heirs. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that an action for quieting of title is imprescriptible especially if the plaintiff is in possession of the property being litigated. One who is in actual possession of a land, claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before making steps to vindicate his right because his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim and its effect on his title. Moreover, the Court held that laches is inapplicable in this case. This is because, as mentioned earlier, petitioners’ possession of the subject lot has rendered their right to bring an action for quieting of title imprescriptible.

301. F.A.T. KEE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., v. ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

FACTS:

Petitioner F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. (FAT KEE) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling computer equipment and conducting maintenance services for the units it sold. ONLINE is also a domestic corporation principally engaged in the business of selling computer units, parts and software.

ONLINE sold computer printers to FAT KEE. However, FAT KEE failed to pay its obligations to ONLINE without any valid reason. ONLINE filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against FAT KEE.

During the trial FAT KEE insisted that the conversion rate they agreed upon was P34:US$1 and not P40 as insisted by ONLINE.

The RTC dismissed the complaint of ONLINE for the latter’s failure to establish its claim. The appellate court reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that even granting that FAT KEE was of the impression that P34:$1 was the applicable rate for its obligation, ONLINE cannot be put in estoppel as this was immediately rectified by ONLINE.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the non-attachment of the relevant portions of the TSN renders the petition of FAT KEE fatally defective.

Whether or not ONLINE is estopped as to the conversion rate used. HELD: The petition is partly meritorious.

First issue: REMEDIAL LAW: Attachments

Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the petition for review on certiorari “such material portions of the record as would support the petition.”

the same would merit the outright dismissal of the petition. Second issue: CIVIL LAW: Estoppel

One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the

representations of another must not have been misled through his own want of reasonable care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party claiming an estoppel is generally fatal. Thus, after participating in the meeting on January 15, 1998, submitting its own proposals and further negotiating for the lowering of the exchange rate, FAT KEE cannot anymore insist that it was completely under the impression that the applicable exchange rate was P34:US$1.