You are on page 1of 6

CASE DIGESTS LEGAL REASEARCH 2

2. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. De Leon [G.R. Nos. 236577 and 236597,
August 15, 2018]

FACTS
The original contract between PCSO and respondent Philippine Gaming and Management
Corporation is the Equipment Lease Agreement with a term of eight (8) years-from 1995 to
2003. On November 14, 1997, the Equipment Lease Agreement was amended to extend the
term until 2007. On December 29, 2004, the Equipment Lease Agreement was further
amended. The parties executed the Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement, which
extended the term of the lease to another eight (8) years-from August 23, 2007 to August 22,
2015. On December 11, 2013, while the Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement was still
in effect, PCSO and respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation entered into
an Interim Settlement and agreed to bring the exclusivity issue before an arbitral tribunal. Thus,
on March 12, 2014, respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation initiated the
arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce. While the arbitration case was
pending, PCSO and respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation executed a
Supplemental and Status Quo Agreement, extending the term of the Equipment Lease
Agreement to another three (3) years "to ensure unhampered lotto operation." Since the
extended Equipment Lease Agreement between PCSO and respondent Philippine Gaming and
Management Corporation was about to expire in August 2018, PCSO started preparing for the
bidding of the Nationwide On-line Lottery System, which would have a term of five (5) years-
from August 2018 to August 2023. Claiming that it is "the exclusive supplier/lessor of lottery
equipment for Luzon," respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation applied for
a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction on July 11, 2017. It sought to
enjoin PCSO from further proceeding with the bidding process.
Respondent judge De Leon issued the writ. PCSO went to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES
Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction
RULING
YES. Respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation's claim of exclusive rights,
as stated in the Interim Settlement and which was brought to arbitration, pertained to its rights
under the Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement, which will expire on August 21, 2018.
It failed to provide proof that the Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement was extended
beyond August 21, 2018. It cannot claim that it has alleged exclusive rights to be protected and
that it will suffer irreparable injury if PCSO continued with the Nationwide On-line Lottery
System bidding process. This is precisely because the bidding was for the next supplier of the
Nationwide On-line Lottery System for a period of five (5) years
after August 21, 2018 or commencing on August 22, 2018.
3. PAGCOR vs COURT OF APPEALS and ANGELINE V. PAEZ G.R. No. 230084

Facts
On May 19, 2006, respondent appealed her dismissal with the CSC. The CSC dismissed the
appeal and affirmed her dismissal. When respondent moved for reconsideration of this
resolution, the CSC reversed itself and reinstated respondent into service.
The CSC exonerated respondent from the administrative charges on account of PAGCOR's
failure to comply with the requirements of Section 38 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. It found that respondent was not notified of the
positive screening result, which should have given her a window of opportunity to impugn the
result through a confirmatory testing.
P AGCOR filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CSC in its July 17, 2012
resolution.
Thus, on August 17, 2012, PAGCOR filed a petition for review before the CA under Rule 43 of
the ROC.
In a Resolution,6 dated June 13, 2014, the CA required PAGCOR, within ten (10) days from
notice, to (1) submit proof that copies of the petition, together with its annexes, had been duly
received by respondent or her counsel; and (2) manifest the current correct and complete
address of respondent and of her counsel.

Issue
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it dismissed the petition for review of PAGCOR.

Ruling
No, Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the ROC, the proper remedy to question the CA's judgment,
final order or resolution, as in the present case, is an appeal by certiorari. The petition must be
filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed
from; or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed in due time after notice of
the judgment. It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the
n1le that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is
regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result
in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client. The Court finds in the instant
case that P AGCOR failed to prove that the negligence of its former counsel was so gross' that it
effectively deprived it of due process.
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs XXX G.R. No. 205888

Facts
Four (4) separate information for Rape and one (1) Information for Attempted Rape were filed
in the RTC against XXX
The RTC, despite the lack of AAA's testimony due to her intervening death, mainly relied on the
separate testimonies of Gelmie Calug (Calug) and EEE in finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The RTC found that the utterances made by AAA to them could still be considered part
of the res gestae as they were "so connected with it as to make the act or declaration and the
main fact inseparable, or be generated by an excited feeling which extends, without break or
let down, from the moment of the event they illustrate."
Notably, the RTC did not appreciate the special qualifying circumstance of filiation as the same
was not proved during trial through competent evidence
Unsatisfied, XXX elevated the case to the CA via Notice of Appeal dated February 28, 2005
In his appeal, XXX mainly argued that the RTC erred in considering the testimonies as res gestae
and instead claimed that such statements were purely hearsay as they were offered in court
only after two (2) years from the date of the alleged incident In lieu of supplemental briefs,
plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation while XXX filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental
Brief
Issue
Whether or not XXX's guilt for the three (3) counts of Rape was proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ruling
Yes, the Court notes that the RTC correctly proceeded with the trial despite the death of the
private complainant, AAA. In criminal cases, the offended party is the State and the role of the
private complainant is limited to the determination of the civil liability of the accused.2 Hence,
in this case, considering that the death of AAA did not extinguish the criminal liability of XXX,
the trial rightfully ensued with the rest of the evidence for the prosecution.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the only issue that remains is simply whether the testimonies
of Calug and EEE pertaining to the statements of AAA can be considered part of the res gestae
and thus produce a conviction.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
In numerous occasions, the Court has held that in the absence of facts or circumstances of
weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn
the factual findings of the trial court. In this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse
the RTC's appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
5. Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. vs. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho A.C. No. 10498

Facts
Complainant is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan,
Branch 42 (RTC), where CV Case No. 2004-0181D, entitled "Pathways Trading International, Inc.
(Pathways) versus Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., et al. (defendants)," was pending.
Respondent is Pathways' counsel. Complainant alleged that while the case was pending,
respondent attempted to fraternize with him.
In the course of the proceedings, Pathways, through respondent, filed a motion for summary
judgment. In its Order dated January 30, 2014, the RTC found the said motion meritorious
because there was no genuine issue in the case.
Thereafter, respondent started to call complainant and even promised to share a portion of his
attorney's fees with complainant in exchange for the denial of the notice of appeal filed by
defendants and the issuance of the writ of execution. The promise was accompanied by a
threat that if the offer is refused, respondent would file a disbarment case against complainant
and he insinuated that through his connections, complainant would surely be disbarred.

Issue
Whether or not Camacho should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath

Ruling
Yes, The Court finds that respondent violated the Code and the Lawyer's Oath for influence
peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers and disrespecting court processes. The
highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge -or a judge evincing a willingness -to
discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge's sala cannot be over-
emphasized.15 A lawyer is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may
be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial
process is diluted. Respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded
confidence in the judiciary. This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting
in moral fiber and that he lacks integrity in his character. These acts of respondent constitute
the height of arrogance and deceit. Respondent violated Canon 13, Rule 13.01, Canon 10 and
Canon 10.01 of the Code.

You might also like