DELA RAMA vs.

MENDIOLA and TITAN CONSTRUCTION

G.R. No. 135394 April 29, 2003

Subject matter.

A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or
concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the
contract under dispute. In the case at bar, both the first and second actions involve the
same real property.

Facts:
Petitioner sold to the government on expropriation a parcel of land, for use in the
construction of the EDSA Extension Project.

Then, undertook to sell to respondent Titan Construction Corporation a parcel of land

adjacent to the one expropriated. Then petitioner failed to comply with his obligations,
prompting respondent to file for rescission of contract. Then, a compromise agreement
between the parties was effected with an Agreement to Sell and Buy, stipulating that the
respondent is waiving all his rights with the parcel of land within which the government
may return in the course of the completion of the EDSA Extension Project.

Petitioner sought the reconveyance of the unused portion of the property from the
government.

Titan filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief, Prohibition, Mandamus and
Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order. RTC denied for lack of merit.
Titan appealed to CA. Meanwhile, Titan filed a action for specific performance based on
the compromise judgment to the RTC. This prompted petitioner to file with the CA a
Motion for Direct Contempt and to Dismiss based on Forum Shopping. It was however
dismissed by RTC, and his MR also denied. Respondent filed a motion to withdraw the
petition in CA, which was granted. Thus, the case was dismissed with finality.

The RTC held that the violation the rule on non-forum-shopping was cured when the CA
dismissed with finality the motion for declaratory relief.

Issue:
WON the specific performance case is barred by the petition for declaratory relief case on
the ground of res judicata? YES

Held:

There is res judicata where the following four essential conditions concur, viz: (1) there
must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
(4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes
of action.

No doubt, all the first three elements are satisfied. As regards the fourth condition, it is
clear that there is identity of parties in the two cases. Although the public respondents in
the declaratory relief case were not impleaded in the specific performance case, only a
substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or
elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.

The subject matters and causes of action of the two cases are likewise identical. In the
case at bar, both the first and second actions involve the same real property. It is true
that the first case was a special civil action for declaratory relief while the second case
was a civil action for specific performance. However, the difference in form and nature of
the two actions is immaterial. The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the
parties from litigating the same issue more than once.

Respondents alleged right in both cases depends on one and the same instrument, the
Agreement to Sell and Buy. Clearly, respondents ultimate objective in instituting the two
actions was to have the property reconveyed in its favor.

The principle of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments.

Controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an
end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.

DECISION: Petition granted. RTC ordered to dismiss case on action for specific
performance on the ground of res judicata.
National Federation of Labor vs. National Labor Relations Commission
G.R. No. 127718 (March 2, 2000)
Facts:
Petitioners are employees of the Patalon Coconut Estate in Zamboanga. With the advent
of the RA No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the government sought
the compulsory acquisition of the land for agrarian reform. Because of this, the private
respondents who are owners of the estate decided to shut down its operation. Petitioners
did not receive any separation pay. Now, the petitioners pray, with the representation of
their labor group, claiming that they were illegally dismissed. They cite Article 283 of the
Labor code where an employer may terminate the employment of any employee due to
the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or
the closing or cessation of operation.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court should apply the legal maxim verbal legis in construing Article
283 of the Labor Code as regards its applicability to the case at bar.
Held:
Yes, the legal maxim is applicable in this case. The use of the word may, in its plain
meaning, denotes that it is directory in nature and generally permissive only. Also, Article
283 of the Labor Code does not contemplate a situation where the closure of the
business establishment is forced upon the employer and ultimately for the benefit of the
employees. The Patalon Coconut Estate was closed down because a large portion of the
said estate was acquired by the DAR pursuant to the CARP. The severance of employeremployee relationship between the parties came about involuntarily, as a result of an act
of the State. Consequently, complainants are not entitled to any separation pay.
Reasoning:
Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given
its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
Policy:
Article 283 of the Labor Code applies in cases of closures of establishment and reduction
of personnel. The peculiar circumstances in the case at bar, however, involves neither
the closure of an establishment nor a reduction of personnel as contemplated under the
article.

Ubi jus, ibi remedium

Where there is a right, there is a remedy.
LEONARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G. R. No. 125329. September 10, 2003
Facts:
Petitioner Ann Brigit Leonardo was born in Manila to common-law spouses
Eddie Fernandez andGloria Leonardo. In her Birth Certificate Leonardo was
her surname.Wanting to change her surname to that of her father, they
sent a letter to the Local CivilRegistrar on August 1, 1994. The Local Civil
Registrar denied their request citing FC 176 which states thatpetitioner,

being illegitimate, should carry the surname of the mother.Issue:Whether

or not Ann Brigit Leonardo could use her fathers surname.
Held:
No. The Family Code has repealed NCC 366 which allows natural children
to use the surname ofthe father if the child is recognized by BOTH
parents. Now, in the Family Code, an illegitimate childshould use the
surname of the mother even if the father acknowledges him/her. Hence,
Ann Brigit has NO right to use the surname of the father. Ubi jus, ibi
remedium. When there is a right, there is aremedy. Conversely, if there
is no right, there is no remedy as every remedial right is based on
asubstantive right.

Stare decisis et non quieta movere

Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.
J.R.A. PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 177127 October 11, 2010
Facts:
Petitioner, a PEZA Corporation, filed applications for tax credit/refund
of unutilized input VAT on its zero-rated sales for the taxable quarters of
2000. The claim for credit/refund, however, remained unacted by the
respondent. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file a petition before the
CTA. The CTA eventually denied the petition for lack of the word zerorated on the invoices/receipts.
Issue:

Whether or not the failure to print the word zero-rated on the

invoices/receipts is fatal to a claim for credit/ refund of input VAT on zerorated sales
Held:
Yes. The absence of the word zero rated on the invoices/receipts is fatal
to a claim for credit/refund of input VAT. This has been squarely resolved in
Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines
(formerly Matsushita Business Machine Corporation of the Philippines) v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. 178090, 612 SCRA 28,
February 8, 2010). In that case, the claim for tax credit/refund was denied
for non-compliance with Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95,
which requires the word zero rated to be printed on the invoices/receipts
covering zero-rated sales.
From the abovementioned decision, the Court ruled that the appearance
of the word zero-rated on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales
prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases
when no VAT was actually paid. If, absent such word, a successful claim
for input VAT is made, the government would be refunding money it did
not collect.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Courts are bound by prior decisions.
Thus, once a case has been decided one way, courts have no choice but
to resolve subsequent cases involving the same issue in the same
manner.

Utile per Inutile non vitiatur

The useful is not vitiated by the non-useful.
PEOPLE vs. MARTIN
G.R. No. L-33487; May 31, 1971
Facts:
Respondents were charged with violating Sec. 46 of C.A. No. 613 or
the Philippine Immigration Act by the Court of First Instance of La Union,
specifically in the act of bringing in and landing. The Court dismissed the
charges on the ground of it being a continuous offense with Criminal Case
6258-M filed in Bulacan against other Respondents who were concealing

and harboring the same Chinese Immigrants who were brought in

therefore they had no jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the the act of bringing in and landing constitute a
continuous offense with concealing and harboring.
Held:
No. They are two separate offenses. C.A. No. 613 clearly provides that the
four acts are in fact four separate acts. Each act possesses its own
distinctive, different, and disparate meaning. The word OR in C.A. No. 613
cannot be given a non-disjunctive meaning signifying the separation
of one act from the other. The words in the information suggesting
conspiracy are considered a mere surplusage. Awell-know Latin maxim is
statutory construction stated that The useful is not vitiated by the nonuseful. Utile per inutile non vitiatur.