May an Indorser of a Check be Held Criminally Liable for Estafa or for the Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law? - Prof. Manuel Riguera

"xxx.

May an indorser of a check be held criminally liable for estafa or for the violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) if the check later bounces?

In Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, 6 July 2001, the Court stated that an indorser who passes a bad check may be held liable under B.P. Blg. 22 if there was evidence that he was aware of the insufficiency of funds to cover the check at the time of his indorsement. A perusal of the case, however, shows that the statement was merely obiter since the accused therein was the drawer, not the indorser, of the check.

In Juaquico v. People, 5 March 2018, the Court held that the indorser could not be held criminally liable under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code because there was no showing of deceit. Implicit from Juaquico is that an indorser could be held liable under Article 315(2)(d) if deceit was proved. The accused was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt but was held civilly liable to the offended party.

My opinion is that an indorser of a check, as a rule, cannot be held criminally liable for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code or for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22, even if he knew of the insufficiency of the funds when he indorsed the check. This view is based on the text of both laws.

Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code punishes any person who shall defraud another by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no such funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check within 3 days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that the check has been dishonored shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

B.P. Blg. 22 provides that any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check; or who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain credit to cover the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the check’s date, for which reason the check is dishonored by the drawee bank shall be punished with imprisonment or fine, or both.

Under B.P. Blg. 22, the drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within 90 days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

Either under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code or under B.P. Blg. 22, it is only the drawer or issuer who is liable for the crime. Both laws do not mention the indorser of a check. It is axiomatic that a criminal law is construed liberally in favor of the accused and that no person should be brought within the terms of a criminal statute who is clearly not within them. The obiter in Bautista was based on the deliberations in the legislature leading to the passage of B.P. Blg. 22. Whatever may have been said during the deliberations should not prevail over the text of the law, which punishes only the drawer or issuer.*

Even if we assume that an indorser could be prosecuted for estafa or for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22, as a practical matter it would be quite difficult to obtain a conviction since the prosecution cannot avail of the presumption of deceit or the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds as these can be availed of only against the drawer or issuer.

The only instance when an indorser may be held criminally liable for estafa or the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is if the indorser acted in conspiracy with the issuer of the check. Thus, in Ramos-Andan v. People, G.R. 136388, 14 March 2006, the Supreme Court held that the indorser of a check was liable for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code because the indorser acted in conspiracy with the drawer of the check in defrauding the offended party.

The Supreme Court has held that Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code on conspiracy may be applied in a suppletory manner to violations of B.P. Blg. 22, pursuant to Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, an indorser may be held liable for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 if he acted in conspiracy with the drawer (See Ladonga v. People, 451 SCRA 673, 683 [2005]).

-oOo-

* Issue means the first delivery of an instrument, complete in form, to a person who takes it as holder (Sec. 191, Negotiable Instruments Law).

Xxx."

Source -

https://legisperit.com/2022/10/30/may-an-indorser-of-a-check-be-held-criminally-liable-for-estafa-or-for-the-violation-of-the-bouncing-checks-law/

The constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against COMPULSORY TESTIMONIAL SELF-INCRIMINATION.

"xxx.

Fully conscious that we are resolving a most extreme case in a sense, which on first impression is a shock to one's sensibilities, we must nevertheless enforce the constitutional provision in this jurisdiction in accord with the policy and reason thereof, undeterred by merely sentimental influences. Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is LIMITED to a prohibition against COMPULSORY TESTIMONIAL SELF-INCRIMINATION. The corollary to the proposition is that, an OCULAR INSPECTION OF THE BODY of the accused is PERMISSIBLE. The proviso is that TORTURE of force shall be AVOIDED. Whether facts fall within or without the rule with its corollary and proviso must, of course, be decided as cases arise.

It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by reputable and disinterested physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarass the patient any more than is absolutely necessary. Indeed, no objection to the physical examination being made by the family doctor of the accused or by doctor of the same sex can be seen.

Although the order of the trial judge, acceding to the request of the assistant fiscal for an examination of the person of the defendant by physicians was phrased in absolute terms, it should, nevertheless, be understood as subject to the limitations herein mentioned, and therefore legal. The writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby denied. The costs shall be taxed against the petitioner. So ordered.

Xxx."

BANC
G.R. No. 16444 September 8, 1920

EMETERIA VILLAFLOR, petitioner,
vs.
RICARDO SUMMERS, sheriff of the City of Manila, respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1920/sep1920/gr_16444_1920.html

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10154 - AN ACT REQUIRING ALL CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE EARLY RELEASE OF THE RETIREMENT PAY, PENSIONS, GRATUITIES AND OTHER BENEFITS OF RETIRING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10154

AN ACT REQUIRING ALL CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE EARLY RELEASE OF THE RETIREMENT PAY, PENSIONS, GRATUITIES AND OTHER BENEFITS OF RETIRING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Declaration of State Policy. - It is hereby declared that it is the policy of the State to ensure the timely and expeditious release of the retirement pay, pensions, gratuities and other benefits of all retiring employees of the government. Public officers and employees who have spent the best years of their lives serving the government and the public should not be made to wait to receive benefits which are due to them under the law. Accordingly, it is hereby mandated that highest priority shall be given to the payment and/or settlement of the pensions, gratuities and/or other retirement benefits of retiring government employees.

Section 2. Period for Release of Retirement Benefits. - The head of the government agency concerned, the President and other responsible officers of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), the President and other responsible officers of the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund) and/or the Secretary and other responsible officers of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) shall ensure the release of the retirement pay, pensions, gratuities, and other benefits of a retiring government employee within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the actual retirement of said employee: Provided, That all requirements are submitted to the concerned government agency at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective date of retirement: Provided, further, That in the case of the GSIS, it shall pay the retirement benefits of the retiring employee on his/her last day of his/her service to the government, pursuant to the GSIS Charter.

Section 3. Retiring Employees With Pending Cases, - In the case of retiring government employees with pending cases and whose retirement benefits are being lawfully withheld due to possible pecuniary liability, the head of the agency where such case is pending shall ensure that the said case shall be terminated and/or resolved within a period of three (3) months from the date of the retirement of the concerned, employee: Provided, That in case the concerned agency fails td terminate and/or resolve the case within the said period without any justifiable reason(s), the retirement benefits -due to the employee shall: be immediately released to him/her without prejudice to the ultimate resolution of the case; except, when the delay is deliberately caused by the retiring employee.

Section 4. Coverage. - This Act shall cover all branches, agencies and/or instrumentalities of the government, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs), excluding personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and shall be applicable both to applications for compulsory retirement and optional or early retirement as authorized by law.

Section 5. Penal Provisions. - The unjustified failure and/or refusal to release the pension, gratuities and other retirement benefits due to a retiring government employee within the periods prescribed above or to comply with any provision of this Act shall be a ground for the filing of administrative disciplinary action against the erring officer(s) and/or employee(s). Such erring officer(s) and/or employee(s) shall, after hearing and due proceedings, be penalized with suspension from the service without pay from six (6) months to one (1) year, at the discretion of the disciplining authority.

This penalty shall not apply if the release of the retirement benefits could not be accomplished due to force majeure and other insuperable causes. In such cases, the thirty (SO)-day period shall be counted from the time such cause(s) cease(s) to exist.

Section 6. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Civil Service Commission (CSC), after consultation and coordination with the government agencies and/or instrumentalities affected by this Act, including, but not limited to, the GSIS, the Pag-IBIG Fund, the Constitutional Commissions, the Legislature and the Judiciary as well as the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), shall promulgate and issue the appropriate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of this Act.1avvphi1

Such rules and regulations shall include provisions prescribing uniform periods for the advance filing of retirement applications in the different agencies concerned, as well as standard periods for the processing and release of claims for retirement benefits, gratuities and allowances which will pinpoint responsibility in case of delay in the release thereof.

Section 7. Separability Clause. - If any provision, part or portion of this Act shall be held as invalid, the provisions, parts or portions of this Act not otherwise affected thereby shall remain valid and effective.

Section 8. Repealing Clause. - All laws, executive issuances, orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any part thereof are hereby repealed, amended and/or modified accordingly.

Section 9. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the country.

Appeals in Summary Procedure - Prof. Manuel Riguera

"xxx.

The new Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP), incorporated as Rule III in the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, took effect on 11 April 2022. The new RSP is a substantial overhaul of the more than three decades old 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (RRSP). Except for small claims, probate proceedings, maritime and admiralty cases, habeas corpus cases, and delegated land registration cases, the new RSP brought virtually all MTC cases within the ambit of the summary procedure rather than the regular procedure. This is the result of bumping up the threshold limit to the jurisdictional amount of the MTCs, that is, ₱2 million.

Section 1, Rule III(C) of the new RSP provides for an appeal from a judgment or final order of the MTC in a summary procedure case.

“SECTION 1. Ordinary appeal. — Any judgment, final order, or final resolution in a Summary Procedure case may be appealed to the appropriate Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory under Rule 40 for civil cases and Rule 122 for criminal cases, of the Rules of Court. xxx”

Like the 1991 RRSP, the new RSP applies also to ejectment cases. There is however a special rule under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court on the immediate execution of an MTC’s appealed judgment against the defendant unless the defendant posts the supersedeas bond and makes the periodic deposit provided therein. It is submitted that this section, which is not in conflict with the new RSP, is still applicable in ejectment cases. Likewise, Section 19 of Rule 70, providing for the remedy of preliminary mandatory injunction on appeal, should be considered as still in force.

Section 2, Rule III(C) of the new RSP reads as follows:

“SEC. 2. Remedy from judgment on appeal. — The judgment of the Regional Trial Court on the appeal shall be final, executory, and unappealable.” [Emphasis supplied]

My opinion is that this section applies only to civil cases in line with Sec. 11(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that “upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party.” It should also be noted that Section 21 of the 1991 RRSP had limited the rule regarding immediate execution of the RTC judgments to civil cases.

There is a similar provision in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court concerning appeals from judgments of the RTC in appealed ejectment cases.

“SEC. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. – The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.” [Emphasis supplied]

My view is that in appealed ejectment cases, the appealed RTC judgment would be immediately executory only if it is against the defendant. Hence, an RTC judgment in an appealed ejectment case which is in favor of the defendant is not immediately executory. Section 2, Rule III(C) of the new RSP should be read in conjunction with Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Under Section 2, Rule III(C) of the new RSP, not only is the RTC judgment immediately executory, but it is also immediately final and executory. Section 22 of the 1991 RRSP had provided that the immediately executory nature of the RTC judgment was “without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.” The new RSP took away this further appeal.

It is submitted with due respect that the portion of Section 2, Rule III(C) providing that the RTC judgment is unappealable should be re-examined

Section 2, Rule III(C) would in effect amend the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals provided for under the Judiciary Act of 1948 and B.P. Blg. 129, particularly, Section 22 of the latter. Section 22 provides that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over judgments of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, the right to appeal is a statutory and substantive right which may be withdrawn only by statute.*

-oOo-

* For similar reasons, reservation is expressed on the provision under the Rule on Small Claims that a decision thereunder shall be final, executory, and unappealable.

Xxx."


Source -

https://legisperit.com/2022/10/17/appeals-in-summary-procedure/

Mandatory drug testing of arrested suspect

NETIZENS are asking why the PDEA did not compel the son of Justice Secretary Remulla to undergo MANDATORY DRUG TESTING upon his arrest.

His son was charged by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas City with ILLEGAL POSSESSION (after a "CONTROLLED DELIVERY" of IMPORTED kush or high-grade marijuana) before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City. The son was not charged with ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS OR ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas has REFERRED to the Office of the City Prosecutor of PASAY CITY the PDEA complaint for ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, considering that the act of IMPORTATION or the MAIN ELEMENTS thereof were CONSUMMATED within the TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION of Pasay City.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City is mandated by the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE to conduct a preliminary investigation of the PDEA complaint for ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

NO Information or criminal charge has been filed, as of now, by the Office of the City Prosecutor of PASAY CITY against the son of Remulla for ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.

The PDEA argues that mandatory drug testing is IRRELEVANT to the Information filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas (ILLEGAL POSSESSION DANGEROUS DRUGS) against the son of Remulla before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, hence, its agents did not compel the son of Remulla to undergo mandatory drug testing under Section 38 of RA 9165, known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".

SECTION 11 of RA 9165, which is the LEGAL BASIS of the Information or criminal charge for ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas City before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, is quoted in full below:

"SECTION 11. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana."

Section 38 ("LABORATORY EXAMINATION OR TEST ON APPREHENDED/ARRESTED OFFENDERS") of RA 9165. provides that "SUBJECT TO SECTION 15 (USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS) of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, IF THE APPREHENDING OR ARRESTING OFFICER HAS REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of PHYSICAL SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS OR OTHER VISIBLE OR OUTWARD MANIFESTATION, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. X x x".

The son of Remulla was charged with ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 11, and not with ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 15 referred to in Section 38.

Section 38 of RA 9165 is quoted in full below:

"SECTION 38. LABORATORY EXAMINATION OR TEST ON APPREHENDED/ARRESTED OFFENDERS. – SUBJECT TO SECTION 15 (USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS) of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, IF THE APPREHENDING OR ARRESTING OFFICER HAS REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of PHYSICAL SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS OR OTHER VISIBLE OR OUTWARD MANIFESTATION, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the SCREENING LABORATORY EXAMINATION or test SHALL BE CHALLENGED within fifteen (15) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE RESULT through a CONFIRMATORY TEST conducted in any ACCREDITED ANALYTICAL LABORATORY EQUIPMENT with a gas CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPECTROMETRY EQUIPMENT or some such modern and accepted method, IF CONFIRMED the same shall be PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that such person has USED dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: PROVIDED, That A POSITIVE SCREENING LABORATORY TEST MUST BE CONFIRMED FOR IT TO BE VALID IN A COURT OF LAW."

As the prefatory part of the language of Section 38 provides, it is SUBJECT TO SECTION 15, which, in turn, refers to ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

Section 15 (USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS), to which Section 38 is subject, is quoted in full below:

"SECTION 15. USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be POSITIVE for USE of any dangerous drug, AFTER A CONFIRMATORY TEST, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months REHABILITATION in a government center for the FIRST OFFENSE, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the SECOND TIME, he/she shall suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT ranging from SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWELVE (12) YEARS and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): PROVIDED, That this Section SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE where the person tested is ALSO FOUND to have in his/her POSSESSION such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under SECTION 11 of this Act, IN WHICH CASE THE PROVISIONS STATED THEREIN SHALL APPLY."

The position of PDEA that MANDATORY DRUG TESTING was IRRELEVANT with respect to the case of the son of Remulla for ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, as filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of LAS PINAS CITY before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, appears to be supported by the language of SECTION 38 in relation to SECTION 15 of RA 9165.

The son of Remulla was arrested, pursuant to a VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST under RULE 113 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (during a "CONTROLLED DELIVERY" of imported dangerous drugs which is ANALOGOUS to a BUY-BUST OPERATION), for ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 11. He was NOT arrested under SECTION 15 for ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.


READ THE RELATED JURISPRUDENCE -

(1) SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner, vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA), respondents. G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008.
(2) ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner, vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, respondents. G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008.
(3) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. G.R. No. 161658, November 3, 2008.


LINK TO THE RELATED JURISPRUDENCE -
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_157870_2008.html


READ MY RELATED FACEBOOK POST -
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5495930807159897&id=100002290961177

Random, suspicionless and mandatory drug testing

On the matter of RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS MANDATORY DRUG TESTING, Paragraph (f) of Section 36 of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, June 7, 2002, known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", provides that "ALL PERSONS CHARGED BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE HAVING AN IMPOSSIBLE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY SHALL HAVE TO UNDERGO A MANDATORY DRUG TEST. "

For reference, Section 36 of RA 9165 is quoted in full below:

"Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. – Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:

(a) Applicants for driver's license. – No driver's license shall be issued or renewed to any person unless he/she presents a certification that he/she has undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon that he/she is free from the use of dangerous drugs;

(b) Applicants for firearm's license and for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. – All applicants for firearm's license and permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall undergo a mandatory drug test to ensure that they are free from the use of dangerous drugs: Provided, That all persons who by the nature of their profession carry firearms shall undergo drug testing;

(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. – Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing: Provided, That all drug testing expenses whether in public or private schools under this Section will be borne by the government;

(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. – Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;

(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. – Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory drug test;

(f) ALL PERSONS CHARGED BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE HAVING AN IMPOSSIBLE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY SHALL HAVE TO UNDERGO A MANDATORY DRUG TEST; and

(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.

In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act."

For your information, in the case entitled "ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner, vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, respondents" ("Laserna Petition"), docketed as G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008, the Supreme Court declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL Paragraph (f) of Section 36 of RA 9165 for being violative of the right to PRIVACY, the right against UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, and the right against SELF-INCRIMINATION.

The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in the Laserna Petition (GR 158633) is quoted below:

"x x x.

LASERNA PETITION
(Constitutionality of Sec. 36[c], [d],
[f], and [g] of RA 9165)

Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.

We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their RIGHT TO PRIVACY. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' RIGHT TO PRIVACY guaranteed under SEC. 2, ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably FORCED TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

X x x."

The dispositive part of the Supreme Court decision in the LASERNA PETITION (GR 158633), which was CONSOLIDATED with the "SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY PETITION" (GR 157870) and the "AQUILINO PIMENTEL JR. PETITION" (GR 161658), is quoted below:

"WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs.

SO ORDERED."


APPLICABLE LAW -

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, June 7, 2002, known and cited as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".


Link to the Cited Jurisprudence -

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_157870_2008.html

"Caesar's wife" doctrine and Remulla

THE essence of "CAESARS WIFE" DOCTRINE, by analogy, should apply to REMULLA. For him to RESIGN, not only inhibit himself, would be a NOBLE ACT. -

JURISPRUDENCE:

"Under the foregoing circumstances, the Salonga doctrine that JUDICIAL "DISCRETION should be exercised in a way that the PEOPLE’S FAITH IN COURTS OF JUSTICE should not be impaired" becomes relevant. Given the prosecution’s APPARENT LACK OF FAITH IN RESPONDENT JUDGE, she was placed in a DIFFICULT POSITION. Should she acquit the accused, her decision will APPEAR TO BE TAINTED WITH BIAS. Such a situation is HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL, not only to the IMAGE of the TRIAL COURT, but to the INTEGRITY of the JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Like CAESAR’S WIFE, a judge must be BEYOND SUSPICION and that he should maintain nothing less than COLD NEUTRALITY AND IMPARTIALITY. Otherwise, the wisest course for a judge would be to DISQUALIFY HIMSELF. Thus, respondent judge SHOULD HAVE INHIBITED HERSELF from further hearing Criminal Cases Nos. 1316-P and 1317-P. At any rate, this issue has become moot considering that she had retired from the service on January 7, 2006."

G.R. Nos. 154150-51 December 10, 2007

NIDA ALEJO, FRANCISCA ALEJO and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JUDGE ERLINDA PESTAÑO-BUTED, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija, ARTHUR SERNA and JONG LINSANGAN, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_154150_2007.html

EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT

"xxx.

Secondly, the petitioners raise the question of res judicata and/or mootness of the present petition brought about by the Court of Appeals Decision in an entirely separate case, i.e., CA-G.R. CV No. 76188,[43] relating to a May 29, 2002 Order of the RTC denying respondent UBP's Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Notice to Pay, whereby the appellate court affirmed the same paving the way for the implementation of the May 4, 2000 and June 10, 2000 Orders of the RTC. But the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated April 19, 2006 fully explained why the petitioners' position is patently erroneous, viz.:

Indeed, CA-GR CV No. 76188 is limited to the propriety of the EXECUTION of the partial summary judgment while CA-GR SP No. 67931 involves the validity of the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT itself. EXECUTION of the questioned judgment WILL NOT PRECLUDE determination of the MERITS of such judgment x x x. In fact, the Rules of Court provides for RESTITUTION in case an EXECUTED JUDGMENT is REVERSED ON APPEAL, x x x Section 5 of Rule 39 reads:

SEC. 5. EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT - Where the judgment executed is reversed totally or partially on appeal, the trial court, on motion, after the case is REMANDED to it, may issue such ORDERS OF RESTITUTION as EQUITY AND JUSTICE may warrant under the circumstances.

Thus, the complete release of a portion of the disputed account is no obstacle to our August 26, 2005 Decision. RESTITUTION of said amount is in order, the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT which authorized its release having been NULLIFIED. [44]

Xxx."

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]

SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22

A PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT A FINAL OR APPEALABLE JUDGMENT

"xxx.

Firstly, as to the procedural matter raised by the petitioners against respondent UBP's petition for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals, suffice it to state that the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT rendered by the RTC being MERELY INTERLOCUTORY in character, it is a trivial matter to discuss whether or not the May 4, 2000 Order granting the Consolidated Motion for Release of Undisputed Balance of Plaintiffs' Funds with Earned Interest became final and executory for respondent UBP's failure to file its petition within the reglementary period within which to do so. The INTERLOCUTOR NATURE of a PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT is provided for under SECTION 4, RULE 35 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to wit:

Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. — If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall ASCERTAIN WHAT MATERIAL FACTS EXIST WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY and what are actually and in good faith CONTROVERTED. It shall thereupon make an ORDER SPECIFYING THE FACTS THAT APPEAR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, including the extent to which the amount of DAMAGES or other relief is NOT IN CONTROVERSY, and DIRECTING such FURTHER PROCEEDINGS in the action as are just. The FACTS SO SPECIFIED shall be DEEMED ESTABLISHED, and the TRIAL shall be conducted on the CONTROVERTED FACTS accordingly.

In GUEVARRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, [39] the Court, in interpreting the abovequoted provision instructed that:

A PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT "is NOT a FINAL OR APPEALABLE JUDGMENT." (Moran, Vol. 2, 1970 Edition, p. 189, citing several cases.) "It is MERELY A PRE-TRIAL ADJUDICATION that said ISSUES in the case shall be DEEMED ESTABLISHED for the trial of the case." (Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. II, p. 429.)

And explained further that:

What the rules contemplate is that the APPEAL FROM THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE JUDGMENT that may be RENDERED IN THE ENTIRE CASE AFTER A TRIAL IS CONDUCTED on the MATERIAL FACTS on which a SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY EXISTS. This is on the assumption that the partial summary judgment was validly rendered which, as shown above, is not true in the case at bar.[40]

In the case at bar, the May 4, 2000 Order of the RTC is a PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, having been RENDERED only with respect to the supposed UNDISPUTED REMAINING BALANCE of the three accounts with respondent UBP. It was NOT INTENDED to cover the ENTIRE AMOUNTS sought by the petitioners in their Complaints. This is confirmed by the pronouncement of the RTC in the said Order that "the funds plaintiffs seek to be released so far are MERELY PART of their principal placements"[41]; and that "[t]he actual INTERESTS plaintiffs are entitled to will be decided with the MAIN CASE.[42]

Xxx."


FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]

SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

"xxx.

Finally, to the MAIN ISSUE in this case. The Court finds that the RTC MISAPPLIED the rules on SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 

SECTION 3, RULE 35 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that after hearing on the motion, SUMMARY JUDGMENT  may be rendered by the court upon application of a party when there is "NO GENUINE ISSUE as to ANY MATERIAL FACT and that the moving party is ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT as a matter of law." The provision reads:

SECTION 3. MOTION AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. — The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

By GENUINE ISSUE is meant an ISSUE OF FACT which calls for the PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE as distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.[45] The court can determine this on the basis of the PLEADINGS, ADMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS, AFFIDAVITS and/or COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS submitted by the parties to the Court.

Conversely, the rendition of summary judgment is NOT JUSTIFIED when the defending party TENDERS VITAL ISSUES which call for the PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE .[46] That is, where the FACTS PLEADED by the parties are DISPUTED OR CONTESTED,proceedings for a summary judgment CANNOT take the place of a trial.[47]

Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the FACTS APPEAR UNDISPUTED AND CERTAIN from the PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ADMISSIONS and AFFIDAVITS. [48] But such should NOT be resorted to -

[I]f there be a DOUBT AS TO SUCH FACTS and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, NEITHER one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the FACTS pleaded by the parties are DISPUTED OR CONTESTED, proceedings for a summary judgment CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A TRIAL. 

An examination of the Rules will readily show that a summary judgment is by no means a hasty one. It assumes a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing after the filing of a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by one party SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, ADMISSIONS, or OTHER DOCUMENTS, with notice upon the adverse party who may file an OPPOSITION to the motion supported also by affidavits, depositions, or other documents (Section 3, Rule 34). In spite of its expediting character, relief by summary judgment can only be allowed after compliance with the minimum requirement of vigilance by the court in a SUMMARY HEARING considering that this remedy is in derogation of a party's RIGHT TO A PLENARY TRIAL of his case. At any rate, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant.[49]

In the present case, the invalidity of the summary judgment rendered by the RTC stems from the fact that such judgment was NOT proper under the allegations of the PLEADINGS filed. Even by the most liberal interpretation of the Rules, this case cannot be considered as one not involving genuine issues which need the presentation of evidence to determine which of the two conflicting assertions of fact is correct.

From the two Complaints, the petitioners alleged that they are the owners of the three Power Savings Account and that they seek the recovery of their alleged deposits therein with interests and damages for breach of contract. On the other hand, an examination of the Consolidated Answer shows that respondent UBP denied the same and raised material issues questioning (1) the veracity of the entries in the passbooks pertaining to the said accounts; (2) the identities of the depositors or owners of the account i.e., whether or not the petitioners and the "accountholders" by the names of "Brenda Gurango-Redor and/or Ma. Victoria Samonte" and "Brenda Gurango-Redor and Moreno Redor" are one and the same persons based on the signature cards on file with the bank; and pointing out that (3) the particular account claimed by petitioners spouses Brenda and Moreno is actually in the name of one Elpidia Ria Leopando. The issues thus raised may not be categorized as not genuine so as to dispense with a formal trial and to authorize the rendition of summary judgment.

More so with the presentation by the petitioners of an affidavit by one claiming to be Elpidia Ria Leopando that PSA No. 12-011-000352-3 was said to be the owner of, a trial on the merits was a necessity in order to accord respondent UBP the chance to cross-examine the supposed affiant.

From the foregoing, the Court agrees in the findings of the Court of Appeals and restates the same, viz:

While [respondent UBP] may have made ADMISSIONS in its pleadings, the same were EXPRESSLY QUALIFIED AND LIMITED to the existences (sic) of the accounts and the flow of funds therein, even as it was always careful to emphasize that, based on its records, [petitioners] were not the owners of the accounts. Grave misgivings over the TRUE OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNTS was therefore engendered, WARRANTING the conduct of a FULL-BLOWN TRIAL. With unseemly haste, however, public respondent Judge Zeus Abrogar leaped to the conclusion that [petitioners] were the accountholders merely because "xxx the amounts (of deposits admitted to by defendant) exactly correspond(ed) to the principal placements [petitioners] made xxx" xxx The more prudent course of action would have been for public respondent Judge Zeus Abrogar to conduct a trial on the matter. To reiterate, ANY DOUBT as to the existence of a genuine issue shall be RESOLVED AGAINST THE PARTY SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT xxx. The May 4, 2000 and June 10, 2000 Orders granting summary judgment notwithstanding the existence of genuine issues of fact were therefore NULL AND VOID.[50]

Respondent UBP's allegation of the IDENTITIES OF THE OWNERS of the accounts is a FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUE resolvable only in a TRIAL ON THE MERITS. Stated otherwise, the genuine issue presented did not justify dispensation of a trial on the merits. From the Consolidated Answer previously quoted above it was plain, indeed, that respondent UBP HAD TENDERED A GENUINE ISSUE and DID NOT ADMIT THAT THE OWNERSHIP by the petitioners of the questioned accounts. As a result, it was essential that the petitioners establish their allegations with PREPONDERANT, RELEVANT AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE. 

The rendition of a summary judgment, albeit partial, substantially prejudiced respondent UBP to the point that it was DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW; thus, the caution pronounced by this Court in Paz v. Court of Appeals[51] is worth repeating, viz:

Courts should NOT render summary judgment HASTILY but rather, carefully assuming a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing, considering that this remedy is in disparagement of a party's RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A party who moves for summary judgment has the BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING CLEARLY THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT, and any DOUBT as to the existence of such an issue is RESOLVED AGAINST THE MOVANT xxx.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated August 26, 2005 and April 19, 2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67931 are AFFIRMED. Let the records of Civil Case Nos. 99-2069 and 99-2070 be remanded to the RTC for pre-trial and trial on the merits without delay. No cost.

SO ORDERED."

Xxx."

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]

SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22

Political crimes

"IT is important to parse out the DISTINCTION made by the Court between TERRORISM and POLITICAL CRIMES. The Philippine jurisdiction and its penal laws have consistently made a DISTINCTION between “POLITICAL CRIMES” and COMMON CRIMES. The former are aimed at achieving a POLITICAL PURPOSE AGAINST A POLITICAL ORDER. Under the doctrine of PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ, common crimes which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense, say rebellion, “are DIVESTED of their character as ‘common’ offenses and ASSUME THE POLITICAL COMPLEXION of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, CANNOT BE PUNISHED SEPARATELY FROM THE PRINCIPAL OFFENSE, OR COMPLEXES WITH THE SAME, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty (PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ , cited in Satur Ocampo v. Hon. Elhrem Abando, et.al.).” An act like killing is not a common crime like homicide or murder if it is COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF REBELLION. The killing ASSUMES THE POLITICAL COMPLEXION OF REBELLION and becomes a MERE INGREDIENT OF THE REBELLION. The accused CAN ONLY BE PROSECUTED FOR THE POLITICAL CRIME, THE REBELLION."

READ - https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/opinion-dark-shadow-anti-terror-act/

JURISPRUDENCE -

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6025
May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., accused. 

G.R. No. L-6026
May 30, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BAYANI ESPIRITU, ET AL., accused. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1964/may1964/gr_l-6025_1964.html

Pacquiao tax case at Court of Tax Appeals; decision.

THIS is the link to the 49-page decision of the COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), dated September 29, 2022, re: the much delayed TAX CASE of the SPOUSES EMMANUEL AND JINKEE PACQUIAO for taxable years 2008 and 2009 involving the amount of P2,261,217,439.92 - https://cta.judiciary.gov.ph/pdfv/web/viewer.html?file=https://cta.judiciary.gov.ph/home/download/0e0c25ef38183c703b08d2696c774c67

This is the link to the website of the COURT OF TAX APPEALS - https://cta.judiciary.gov.ph/.

THE ISSUES:

The parties stipulated the following issues for this Court's resolution, to wit:

"(1) Whether or not the Deficiency Tax Assessments are null and void for having been issued in contravention of petitioners' Constitutional right to due process;

(2) Whether the Honorable Court can validly examine and adjudicate on the CIR's exercise of his exclusive determination to issue Letters of Authority;

(3) Whether Petitioners are liable for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for taxable years 2008 and 2009 in the aggregate amount of P2,261,217,439.92 plus 50% surcharge, deficiency and delinquency interest pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the NIRC of 1997."

The CTA CANCELLED AND set ASIDE the 2013 DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX TAX ASSESSMENT issued by the BIR against the petitioners Spouses Pacquiao.

The DISPOSITION PORTION of the CTA decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the subject deficiency income tax assessment in the aggregate amount of P2,229,020,905.50, inclusive of interests and surcharges, for taxable years 2008 and 2009, the Preliminary Collection Letter dated July 19, 2013, the Warrants of Distraint and/or Levy and Garnishment dated July 1, 2013, and the Final Notice Before Seizure dated August 7, 2013, all issued against petitioners are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby ENJOINED from proceeding with the collection of the said deficiency taxes against petitioners during the pendency of the instant case.

SO ORDERED."

IN SUMMARY, the CTA GRANTED THE PETITION OF THE SPOUSES PACQUIAO against the BIR for failure of the latter to respect the DUE PROCESS RIGHTS of the former and for LACK OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS on the part of the BIR in issuing the questioned income tax deficiency assessment, to wit:

"The Court finds that the foregoing news articles are not sufficient basis for an assessment. In Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, et a/. vs. Han. Salvador C. Medialdea, et a/., 206 the Supreme Court held that news articles amount to "hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value". The Supreme Court discussed as follows:

"However, the so-called counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified news articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the contents thereof. It was not even shown that efforts were made to secure such affirmation albeit the circumstances proved futile. As the Court has consistently ruled, news articles are hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. This pronouncement applies with equal force to the Cullamat Petition which likewise submitted online news articles as basis for their claim of insufficiency of factual basis." (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the foregoing, considering that the documents presented by respondent as basis for the assessment of petitioners' deficiency taxes consists of UNVERIFIED NEWS ARTICLES and that the AUTHORS HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE on the transactions involved, the same CANNOT be given any PROBATE VALUE.

Further, a perusal of the records shows that there is NO INDICATION that the news articles were CORROBORATED. Likewise, there is NO SHOWING that the revenue officers performed DUE DILIGENCE TO CONFIRM THE VERACITY OF THE INFORMATION contained in the said articles before issuing the subject assessment.

Clearly, the UNVERIFIED NEWS ARTICLES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROPER AND SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT. Thus, finding the subject assessment without sufficient basis, the same SHOULD BE CANCELLED AND WITHDRAWN.

In sum, the Court finds that the subject assessment for deficiency income tax is VOID FOR VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS. Needless to state, a VOID ASSESSMENT bears no fruit.

Consequently, the issuance of the PCL, FNBS, and the Warrants of Distraint and/or Levy and Garnishment are likewise VOID AND INEFFECTUAL.

With the foregoing, it becomes unnecessary to address the remaining arguments raised by the parties in this case."

I expect the BIR, through the OSG, to seasonably APPEAL the CTA decision to the SUPREME COURT via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

(For lack of time, I read only the salient parts of the decision, i.e., issues, dispositive part, and the main ratio decidendi).

Related -

Republic Act No. 9282
March 30 2004
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9282_2004.html

A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA
November 22, 2005
REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_05_11_07_cta_2005.html

A.M..No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005, REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA November 22, 2005
REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1125, as further amended by Republic Act No. 9282, the Court of Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the Court) hereby adopts and promulgates the following Rules for the conduct of its business:

RULE 1

TITLE AND CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 1. Title of the Rules – These Rules shall be known and cited as the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). (RCTA, Rule 1, sec. 1a)

SEC. 2. Liberal construction.- The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding before the Court. (RCTA, Rule 1, sec. 2a)

SEC. 3. Applicability of the Rules of Court. – The Rules of Court in the Philippines shall apply suppletorily to these Rules. (n)

RULE 2

THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS

Section 1. Composition of the Court. – The Court is composed of a presiding justice and five associate justices appointed by the President of the Philippines. In appropriate cases, the Court shall sit en banc, or in two Divisions of three justices each, including the presiding justice, who shall be the Chairman of its First Division. (n)

SEC. 2. Exercise of powers and functions. – The Court shall exercise its adjudicative powers, functions and duties en banc or in Divisions.

The Court shall sit en banc in the exercise of its administrative, ceremonial and non-adjudicative functions. (n)

SEC. 3. Court en banc; quorum and voting. – The presiding justice or, in his absence, the most senior justice in attendance shall preside over the sessions of the Court en banc. The attendance of four justices of the Court shall constitute a quorum for its sessions en banc. The presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of four justices of the Court en banc shall be necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution on any case or matter submitted for its consideration. Where the necessary majority vote cannot be had, the petition shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

No decision of a Division of the Court may be reversed or modified except by the affirmative vote of four justices of the Court en banc acting on the case.

Interlocutory orders or resolutions shall be acted upon by majority vote of the justices present constituting a quorum.

(Rules of Court, Rule 56, sec. 7a)

SEC. 4. The Court in Divisions; quorum and voting. – The chairman of the Division or, in his absence, its senior member shall preside over the sessions of the Court in Divisions. The attendance of at least two justices of the Court shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for its sessions in Divisions. The presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of at least two justices shall be required for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution of the Court in Divisions. (n)

SEC. 5. Hearings. – The Court en banc or in Divisions shall conduct hearings on such days and at such times and at such places as it may fix, with notice to the parties concerned. However, the Friday of each week shall be devoted to hearing motions, unless, for special reasons, the Court en banc or in Divisions shall, motu proprio or upon motion of a party, fix another day for the hearing of any motion. (RCTA, Rule 3, sec. 2a)

SEC. 6. Disqualification of justices.-

(a) Mandatory. – No justice or other officer or employee of the Court shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in the management or control of any private enterprise which in any way may be affected by the functions of the Court. Justices of the Court shall be disqualified from sitting in any case on the same grounds provided under the first paragraph, Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. No person who has once served in the Court either as presiding justice or as associate justice shall be qualified to practice as counsel before the Court for a period of one year from his retirement or resignation as such. (Rules of Court, Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 1a)

(b) Disclosure and consent of parties and lawyers. – A justice disqualified under the first paragraph, Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, may, instead of withdrawing from a case or proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of his disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the justice’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the justice may participate in the action or proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the action or proceeding. (Rules of Court, Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 1a)

(c) Voluntary. – A justice of the Court may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case or proceeding, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (Rules of Court, Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 2a)

A justice of the Court who inhibits himself from sitting in a case or proceeding shall immediately notify in writing the presiding justice and the members of his Division. (n)

SEC. 7. Motion to inhibit a justice. – When a motion for inhibition of a justice is filed, the Court, en banc or in Division, shall act upon the motion. However, if the motion for inhibition is based on a discretionary ground, the Court shall refer the motion to the justice involved for his appropriate action. (n)

RULE 3

PLACE OF OFFICE, SEAL AND OFFICE HOURS

SECTION 1. Place of office. – The Court shall have its principal office in Metro Manila. RCTA, Rule 3, sec. 1a)

SEC. 2. Court seal. – The seal of the Court shall be circular in form and shall be of the usual size. It shall bear, in its center, a design of the coat of arms of the Republic of the Philippines with the words “BATAS AT BAYAN” immediately underneath the design. On the upper margin running from left to right are the words “COURT OF TAX APPEALS,” and on its lower margin the words “REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS.” (RCTA, Rule 2, sec. 1a)

SEC. 3. Seal, where affixed. – The seal of the Court shall be affixed to all summons, subpoena, notices, decisions, orders or resolutions, certified copies of official records and such other papers that the Court may require to be sealed. (n)

SEC. 4. Office hours. – The Office of the Clerk of Court shall be open for the transaction of business and receiving petitions, complaints, pleadings, motions, and other papers, during the hours from eight o’clock in the morning to four-thirty o’clock in the afternoon on Mondays to Fridays, except on such days as may be designated by law or executive proclamation as non-working official holidays. (RCTA, Rule 3, sec. 3a)

RULE 4

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

SECTION 1. Jurisdiction of the Court. – The Court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the cases specified in Republic Act No. 1125, Section 7, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, Section 7. (n)

SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc. – The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following:

(a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over:

(1) Cases arising from administrative agencies – Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture;

(2) Local tax cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction; and

(3) Tax collection cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and penalties claimed is less than one million pesos;

(b) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction;

(c) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction;

(d) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over tax collection cases;

(e) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

(f) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs;

(g) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses mentioned in the preceding subparagraph; and

(h) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses mentioned in subparagraph (f).(n)

SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. – The Court in Divisions shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following:

(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided, further, that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules; and Provided, still further, that in the case of claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code;

(3) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction;

(4) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures of other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;

(5) Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; and

(6) Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties;

(b) Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses, to wit:

(1) Original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Bureau of Customs, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is one million pesos or more; and

(2) Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in their original jurisdiction in criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than one million pesos or where there is no specified amount claimed;

(c) Exclusive jurisdiction over tax collections cases, to wit:

(1) Original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is one million pesos or more; and

(2) Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them within their respective territorial jurisdiction. (n)

RULE 5

FORM AND STYLE OF PAPERS

SECTION 1. Style. – All papers filed with the Court shall be either printed or typewritten, and fastened on the upper left hand corner. All such papers shall have a caption, date and signature, and copies, as specified below. (RCTA, Rule 4, sec. 1a)

SEC. 2. Size and specifications. – Printed or typewritten papers shall be typed doubled-spaced on good quality, unglazed and plain white paper eight and a half inches wide by thirteen inches long (legal-size), or eight and a quarter inches wide by eleven and three-fourths inches long (A4-size), at least substance twenty and printed on one side only without covers. There shall be a margin at the left-hand side of each page of not less than one and one-half inches in width and at the top, bottom and right-hand side of each page of not less than one inch in width. (RCTA, Rule 4, sec. 3a)

SEC. 3. Citations. – Citations shall be indented at least one inch from the inside margin and typed single-spaced. (RCTA, Rule 4, sec. 4a)

SEC. 4. Number of copies. – The parties shall file eleven signed copies of every paper for cases before the Court en banc and six signed copies for cases before a Division of the Court in addition to the signed original copy, except as otherwise directed by the Court. Papers to be filed in more than one case shall include one additional copy for each additional case. (RCTA, Rule 4, sec. 5a)

SEC. 5. Clear and legible copies. – All copies shall be clear and legible. (RCTA, Rule 4, sec. 6a)

RULE 6

PLEADINGS FILED WITH THE COURT

SECTION 1. Complaint; contents. – The complaint shall contain allegations showing jurisdiction of the Court and a concise statement of the complete facts of the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The complaint shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as provided in Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. (n)

SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents. – The petition for review shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied upon for the review of the challenged decision. The petition shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as provided in Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. A clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision appealed from shall be attached to the petition. (RTCA, Rule 5, sec. 2a)

SEC. 3. Payment of docket fees. – The Clerk of Court shall not receive a petition for review for filing unless the petitioner submits proof of payment of the docket fees. Upon receipt of the petition or the complaint, it will be docketed and assigned a number, which shall be placed by the parties on all papers thereafter filed in the proceeding. The Clerk of Court will then issue the necessary summons to the respondent or defendant. (RCTA, Rule 5, sec. 3a)

SEC. 4. Bill of particulars. –

(a) Requirement for bill of particulars. – The Court, on its own initiative or upon motion of either party filed before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, within ten days after service of the pleading upon him, may order a party to submit a detailed statement of the nature of the claim or defense or of any matter stated in any pleading, which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity. Such order or motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading, the moving or adverse party may file his responsive pleading within ten days. (RCTA, Rule 8, sec. 1a)

(b) Failure to comply. – If the order issued by the Court pursuant to paragraph (a) above is not complied with within ten days after notice of the order, or within such other time as the Court may fix, the Court may strike out the pleading to which the motion was directed or may make such other order as it deems just. The Court may upon motion set aside the order, or modify it in the interest of justice. (RCTA, Rule 8, sec. 2a)

(c) Motion for bill of particulars when not allowed. – No motion for bill of particulars shall be allowed in cases falling under Sections 3(a)(3) and 3(c)(2) of Rule 4 of these Rules. (n)

SEC. 5. Answer. –

(a) Time for filing and contents. – Within fifteen days after service of summons, the respondent or the defendant shall file an answer to the petition or complaint which shall include all defenses in law and the specific provisions of law and applicable jurisprudence and grounds for dismissal of the petition or complaint, or which shall prevent and bar recovery.

(Rule of Procedure for Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation and Freeze Order, Sec. 9, par. 2a; and RCTA, Rule 7, sec. 1a)

(b) Transmittal of records. – The respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary of Trade and Industry, within ten days after his answer, the chairman of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the presiding judges of the Regional Trial Courts, within ten days from receipt of notice, shall certify and forward to the Court all the records of the case in their possession, with the pages duly numbered, and, if the records are in separate folders, then the folders will also be numbered. If there are no records, such fact shall be manifested to the Court within the same period of ten days. The Court may, on motion, and for good cause shown, grant an extension of time within which to submit the aforesaid records of the case. Failure to transmit the records within the time prescribed herein or within the time allowed by the Court may constitute indirect contempt of court. (RCTA, Rule 7, sec. 2a)

SEC. 6. Entry of appearance. – An attorney may enter his appearance by signing the initial pleading. An attorney may later enter his appearance only by filing an entry of appearance with the written conformity of his client.

The initial pleading or entry of appearance shall show:

(1) The attorney’s specific address which must not be a Post Office Box number;

(2) His Roll of Attorney’s Number;

(3) The date and number of his current membership due in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) per Official Receipt, or Lifetime Member Number;

(4) Current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number together with date and place of issuance; and

(5) MCLE certificate number and date of issue, unless exempt.

The attorney or party entering his appearance shall serve a copy of the entry of appearance upon the opposing party. An attorney who appears in open court without previously having filed his written appearance must give his business address to the Clerk of Court and file his written appearance within forty-eight hours from such open court appearance. An attorney or party who has filed his appearance and who changes his address of record shall notify the Clerk of Court and the adverse party of such change of address, and a separate notice of such change of address shall be filed for each additional case. (RCTA, Rule 10, sec. 1a)

RULE 7

PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals, exception. – The procedure in the Court en banc or in Divisions in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise provided for in these Rules. (n)

RULE 8

PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES

SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en banc. – In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en banc, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. (n)

SEC. 2. Review of cases in the Court in Division. – In appealed cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Court in Division in Sections 3(a)(1) to 3(a)(6) and 3(c)(2) of Rule 4, the party filing the case shall be called the Petitioner and the party against whom the case is filed shall be called the Respondent. The pleading shall be entitled Petition for Review.

In tax collection cases originally filed with the Court under Section 3(c)(1) of Rule 4, the party filing the case shall be called the Plaintiff and the party against whom the case is filed shall be called the Defendant. The pleading shall be entitled Complaint. In appealed tax collection cases, the original captions shall be retained. The party filing the appeal shall be called the Appellant and the party against whom the appeal is filed shall be called the Appellee. (RCTA, Rule 5, Sec. 1a)

SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. – (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. (n)

(b) A party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. (Rules of Court, Rule 42, sec. 1a)

(c) A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or ruling. (n)

SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. – (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. (n)

(b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. (n)

(c) An appeal from a decision or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. (n)

RULE 9

PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES

SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court. – The review of criminal cases in the Court en banc or in Division shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. (n)

SEC. 2. Institution of criminal actions. – All criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. In criminal actions involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the tariff and Customs Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, sec. 2a; n)

The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, sec. 1, par. 2a)

SEC. 3. Prosecution of criminal actions. – All criminal actions shall be conducted and prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. In criminal actions involving violation of the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and violations of the Tariff and Customs Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the prosecution may be conducted by their respective duly deputized legal officers. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, sec. 5, par. 6a)

SEC. 4. Warrant of arrest. – Within ten days from the filing of the information, the Division of the Court to which the case was raffled shall evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and its supporting evidence. The Division may immediately dismiss the case if it finds that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If the Division finds probable cause, it shall issue a warrant of arrest signed by the Chairman of the Division. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the Division may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence, ex parte, within five days from notice. (Rules of Court, Rule 112, sec. 6a)

SEC. 5. When search warrant may issue. – The Division may issue a search warrant signed by its Chairman following the requirements of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. (n)

SEC. 6. Bail, how amount fixed; approval. – The amount of bail to be posted in a case filed with the Court shall be fixed and approved by the Division to which the case is raffled: Provided, however, that where the accused is arrested, detained or otherwise placed in custody outside the Metropolitan Manila area, any judge of the Regional Trial Court of the place where the arrest is made may accept and approve the bail for his release and appearance before the Division to which his case is assigned. The judge who accepted the bail and released the accused shall inform the Division that issued the order of arrest of his action and forward to it the papers relative to the case. (Rules of Court, Rule 114, sec. 17a)

SEC. 7. Conditions of the bail. – The conditions of the bail are that the accused shall appear and answer the complaint or information in the Division of the Court to which it is raffled or transferred for trial and submit himself to its orders and processes. If convicted, and the case is appealed to the Court en banc or to the Supreme Court, he will surrender himself for the execution of such judgment as the Court en banc or the Supreme Court may render; or that, in the event the case is to be tried anew or remained for a new trial, he shall appear before the Division to which it may be remanded and submit himself to its orders and processes. Rules of Court, Rule 114, sec. 2a)

SEC. 8. Release order. – The Clerk of Court shall issue the corresponding release order. (Rules of Court, Rule 114, sec. 3a)

SEC. 9. Appeal; period to appeal. – (a) An appeal to the Court in criminal cases decided by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or final order with the court which rendered the final judgment or order appealed from and by serving a copy upon the adverse party. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal.

(b) An appeal to the Court en banc in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days.

(c) An appeal to the Court in criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or final order appealed from. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. (n)

SEC. 10. Solicitor General as counsel for the People and government officials sued in their official capacity. – The Solicitor General shall represent the People of the Philippines and government officials sued in their official capacity in all cases brought to the Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. He may deputized the legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in cases brought under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the legal officers of the Bureau of Customs in cases brought under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, to appear in behalf of the officials of said agencies sued in their official capacity: Provided, however, such duly deputized legal officers shall remain at all times under the direct control and supervision of the Solicitor General. (n)

SEC. 11. Inclusion of civil action in criminal action. – In cases within the jurisdiction of the Court, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall be deemed jointly instituted in the same proceeding. The filing of the criminal action shall necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action. No right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be allowed or recognized. (Rules of Court, Rule 111, sec. 1[a], par. 1a)

RULE 10

SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF TAX

SECTION 1. No suspension of collection of tax, except as herein prescribed. – No appeal taken to the Court shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided under existing laws, except as hereinafter prescribed. (n)

SEC. 2. Who may file. – Where the collection of the amount of the taxpayer’s liability, sought by means of a demand for payment, by levy, distraint or sale of any property of the taxpayer, or by whatever means, as provided under existing laws, may jeopardized the interest of the Government or the taxpayer, an interested party may file a motion for the suspension of the collection of the tax liability. (RCTA, Rule 12, sec. 1a)

SEC. 3. When to file. – The motion for the suspension of the collection of the tax may be filed together with the petition for review or with the answer, or in a separate motion filed by the interested party at any stage of the proceedings. (RCTA, Rule 12, sec. 2)

SEC. 4. Contents and attachments of the motion. – The motion for the suspension of the collection of the tax shall be verified and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the grounds relied upon in support of the motion. Affidavits and other documentary evidence in support thereof shall be attached thereto, which, if uncontroverted, would be admissible in evidence as proof of the facts alleged in the motion. (RCTA, Rule 12, sec. 3a)

SEC. 5. Opposition. – Unless a shorter period is fixed by the Court because of the urgency of the motion, the adverse party shall, within five days after receipt of a copy of the motion, file an opposition thereto, if any, which shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the grounds relied upon in support of the opposition. (RCTA, Rule 12, sec. 4)

SEC. 6. Hearing of the motion. – The movant shall, upon receipt of the opposition, set the motion for hearing at the next available motion day, and the Court shall give preference to the motion over all other cases, except criminal cases. At the hearing, both parties shall submit their respective evidence. If warranted, the Court may grant the motion if the movant shall deposit with the Court an amount in cash equal to the value of the property or goods under dispute or filing with the Court of an acceptable surety bond in an amount not more than double the disputed amount or value. However, for the sake of expediency, the Court, motu proprio or upon motion of the parties, may consolidate the hearing of the motion for the suspension of the collection of the tax with the hearing on the merits of the case. (RCTA, Rule 12, sec. 5a)

SEC. 7. Corporate surety bonds. – In the selection and qualification of surety companies, the parties and the Court shall be guided by Supreme Court Circular A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC, dated July 20, 2004. (n)

RULE 11

PRE-TRIAL

SECTION 1. Applicability. – The rule on pre-trial under Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of Court, as amplified in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC dated July 13, 2004 (Re: Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerk of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), shall apply to all cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Court, except that the parties may not be allowed to compromise the criminal liability or submit the case to mediation, arbitration or other mode of alternative dispute resolution. (n)

SEC. 2. Mandatory pre-trial. – In civil cases, the Clerk of Court shall set the case for pre-trial on the first available date immediately following the tenth day after the filing of the answer.

In criminal cases, the Clerk of Court shall set the case for pre-trial not later than ten days after arraignment, if the accused is detained, nor later than thirty days if the accused is on bail.

(RCTA, Rule 11, sec. 1a)

SEC. 3. Setting for an earlier date. – Where, due to the urgency of the case, either party desires that the pre-trial be set on an earlier date, such party shall so state in his pleading, in which event the clerk of Court shall set the pre-trial on the first available date immediately after the filing of the answer. (RCTA, Rule 11, sec. 2a)

SEC. 4. Duty of the Court. – The Court shall confer with the parties in pre-trial conferences with a view to narrowing the issues, making admissions of or stipulating on facts, simplifying the presentation of evidence, or otherwise assisting in the preparation for trial or possible disposition of the case in whole or in part without trial. (n)

SEC. 5. Procedure in civil cases. – In civil cases, the parties shall submit, at least three days before the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs containing the following:

(a) A statement of their willingness to compromise the civil liability indicating its desired terms, except that the case shall not be subject to referral to mediation, arbitration or other mode of alternative dispute resolution;

(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;

(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;

(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating their purpose. No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been pre-marked and identified, unless allowed by the Court to prevent manifest injustice;

(e) A manifestation of their having availed themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and

(f) The numbers and names of the witnesses, the substance of their testimonies and the approximate number of hours that will be required by the parties for the presentation of their respective witnesses.

The consequence on the party at fault shall be the same as the effect of failure to appear.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

(Rules of Court, Rule 18, sec. 6a)

SEC. 6. Procedure in criminal cases. –

(a) Before the preliminary conference. – Before the pre-trial conference, the Court may issue an order referring the case to the Division Clerk of Court for a preliminary conference of the parties at least three days prior to the pre-trial:

(1) To mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies to be attached to the records after comparison;

(2) To consider other matters as may aid in its disposition; and

(3) To inform the parties that no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial other than those identified and marked during the pre-trial unless allowed by the Court to prevent manifest injustice.

(Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures, Sec. 1B[2]a)

(b) During the preliminary conference. – The Division Clerk of Court shall:

(1) Mark the documents to be presented as exhibits and copies attached to the records after comparison;

(2) Ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admission on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked as exhibits; and

(3) Consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case.

The proceedings during the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the minutes of preliminary conference to be signed by both parties and counsel. The Division Clerk of Court shall attach the minutes of preliminary conference and the exhibits to the case record before the pre-trial.

(Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures, Sec. IB[3]a)

(c) During the pre-trial conference. – The Court at the pre-trial conference shall consider the following:

(1) Stipulation of facts and issues raised;

(2) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(3) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

(4) Modification of order of trial; and

(5) Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.

(Rules of Court, Rule 118, sec. 1a).

All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used in evidence against the accused. The agreements shall be subject to the approval of the Court.

(Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition –Discovery Measures, Sec. IB[8]a; and Rules of Court, Rule 118, sec. 2a)

The Court may impose appropriate sanctions or penalties on the accused or counsel or the prosecutor who does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his absence and lack of cooperation. (Rules of Court, Rule 118, sec. 3a)

(d) Pre-trial order. – After the pre-trial conference, the Court shall issue a pre-trial order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, evidence marked, and such other matters covered during the pre-trial conference. The order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by the Court to prevent manifest injustice. (Rules of Court, Rule 118, sec. 4a)

RULE 12

TRIAL

SECTION 1. Procedure. – The Court shall conduct the trial in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of Court in civil cases and Rule 119 thereof in criminal cases. (n)

SEC. 2. Power of the Court to receive evidence. – The Court may receive evidence in the following cases:

(a) In all cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Court in Division pursuant to Section 3, Rule 4 of these Rules; and

(b) In appeals in both civil and criminal cases where the Court grants a new trial pursuant to Section 2, Rule 53 and Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. (n)

SEC. 3. Taking of evidence by a justice. – The Court may, motu proprio or upon proper motion, direct that a case, or any issue therein, be assigned to one of its members for the taking of evidence, when the determination of a question of fact arises at any stage of the proceedings, or when the taking of an account is necessary, or when the determination of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account. The hearing before such justice shall proceed in all respects as though the same had been made before the Court.

Upon the completion of such hearing, the justice concerned shall promptly submit to the Court a written report thereon, stating therein his findings and conclusions. Thereafter, the Court shall render its decision on the case, adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or, the Court may, in its discretion, recommit it to the justice with instructions, or receive further evidence. (n)

SEC. 4. Taking of evidence by Court official. – In default or ex parte hearings, or in any case where the parties agree in writing, the Court may delegate the reception of evidence to the Clerk of Court, the Division Clerks of Court, their assistants who are members of the Philippine bar, or any Court attorney. The reception of documentary evidence by a Court official shall be for the sole purpose of marking, comparison with the original, and identification by witnesses of such documentary evidence. The Court official shall have no power to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the Court upon submission of his report and the transcripts within ten days from termination of the hearing. (Rules of Court, Rule 30, sec. 9a)

SEC. 5. Presentation of voluminous documents or long accounts. – In the interest of speedy administration of justice, the following rules shall govern the presentation of voluminous documents or long accounts, such as receipts, invoices and vouchers, as evidence to establish certain facts:

(a) Summary and CPA certification. – The party who desires to introduce in evidence such voluminous documents or long accounts must, upon motion and approval by the Court, refer the voluminous documents to an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) for the purpose of presenting:

(1) a summary containing, among other matters, a chronological listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the invoices or receipts and the amount(s) of taxes paid and

(2) a certification of an independent CPA attesting to the correctness of the contents of the summary after making an examination, evaluation and audit of voluminous receipts, invoices or long accounts.

The name of the Certified Public Accountant or partner of a professional partnership of certified public accountants in charge must be stated in the motion. The Court shall issue a commission authorizing him to conduct an audit and, thereafter, testify relative to such summary and certification.

(b) Pre-marking and availability of originals. – The receipts, invoices, vouchers or other documents covering the said accounts or payment to be introduced in evidence must be pre-marked by the party concerned and submitted to the Court in order to be made accessible to the adverse party who desires to check and verify the correctness of the summary and CPA certification. The original copies of the voluminous receipts, invoices or accounts must be ready for verification and comparison in case doubt on its authenticity is raised during the hearing or resolution of the formal offer of evidence. (n)

RULE 13

TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

SECTION 1. Appointment of independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA). – A party desiring to present voluminous documents in evidence before the Court may secure the services of an independent certified Public Accountant (CPA) at its own expense. The Court shall commission the latter as an officer of the Court solely for the purpose of performing such audit functions as the Court may direct. (n)

SEC. 2. Duties of independent CPA. – The independent CPA shall perform audit functions in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles, rules and regulations, which shall include:

(a) Examination and verification of receipts, invoices, vouchers and other long accounts;

(b) Reproduction of, and comparison of such reproduction with, and certification that the same are faithful copies of original documents, and pre-marking of documentary exhibits consisting of voluminous documents;

(c) Preparation of schedules or summaries containing a chronological listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by receipts or invoices or other relevant documents and the amount(s) of taxes paid;

(d) Making findings as to compliance with substantiation requirements under pertinent tax laws, regulations and jurisprudence;

(e) Submission of a formal report with certification of authenticity and veracity of findings and conclusions in the performance of the audit;

(f) Testifying on such formal report; and

(g) Performing such other functions as the Court may direct.

SEC. 3. Findings of independent CPA. – The submission by the independent CPA of pre-marked documentary exhibits shall be subject to verification and comparison with the original documents, the availability of which shall be the primary responsibility of the party possessing such documents and, secondarily, by the independent CPA. The findings and conclusions of the independent CPA may be challenged by the parties and shall not be conclusive upon the Court, which may, in whole or in part, adopt such findings and conclusions subject to verification. (n)

SEC. 4. Other referral to commissioner. – Whenever practicable and convenient, the Court may apply the procedure prescribed in Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. When the parties stipulate that a commissioner’s findings of fact shall be final, only questions of law shall thereafter be considered. (n)

SEC. 5. Compensation of Commissioner. – The Court shall allow the commissioners such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case may warrant. (Rules of Court, Rule 32, sec. 13a)

RULE 14

JUDGMENT, ITS ENTRY AND EXECUTION

SECTION 1. Rendition of judgment. – The Court shall decide the cases brought before it in accordance with Section 15, paragraph (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. The conclusions of the Court shall be reached in consultation by the Members on the merits of the case before its assignment to a Member for the writing of the decision. The presiding justice or chairman of the Division shall include the case in an agenda for a meeting of the Court en banc or in Division, as the case may be, for its deliberation. If a majority of the justices of the Court en banc or in Division agree on the draft decision, the ponente shall finalize the decision for the signature of the concurring justices and its immediate promulgation. Any justice of the Court en banc or in Division may submit a separate written concurring or dissenting opinion within twenty days from the date of the voting on the case. The concurring and dissenting opinions, together with the majority opinion, shall be jointly promulgated and attached to the rollo.

In deciding the case, the Court may not limit itself to the issues stipulated by the parties but may also rule upon related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. (2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, secs. 9 and 10a; and Rules of Court, Rule 51, sec. 2a)

SEC. 2. Form of decision. – Every decision or final resolution of the Court shall be in writing, stating clearly and distinctly the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based, and signed by the justices concurring therein. Such findings and conclusions shall be contained in the decision or final resolution itself. However, in appealed cases, the Court may adopt by reference the findings and conclusions set forth in the decision, order or resolution appealed from.

Every decision of the Court shall be accompanied by a certification signed by the presiding justice or acting presiding justice, chairman or most senior member as acting chairman of the Court en banc or in Division in the following form:

“Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.”

(Rules of Court, Rule 51, sec 5a; and 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, sec. 11a)

SEC. 3. Amended decision. – Any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en banc or in Division shall be denominated as Amended Decision. (2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, sec. 12a)

SEC. 4. Resolution. – Any disposition of the Court en banc or in Divisions other than on the merits shall be embodied in a Resolution.

(2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, sec. 12a)

SEC. 5. Promulgation and notice of decision and resolution. – The Clerk of Court or Deputy Clerk of Court shall have the direct responsibility for the promulgation of the decision and resolution of the Court. He shall see to it that the decision and resolution are properly signed by the concurring and dissenting justices and the required certification is duly accomplished.

Promulgation consists of the filing of the decision or resolution with the Clerk of Court or Division Clerk of Court, who shall forthwith annotate the date and time of receipt and attest to it by his signature thereon. He shall serve notice of such decision or resolution upon the parties or their counsel, furnishing them with certified true copies thereof.

(2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, sec. 13a; and Rules of Court, Rule 51, sec. 9a)

In criminal cases originally filed with and decided by the Court in Division, the chairman shall cause the decision or resolution to be filed with the Division Clerk of Court in a sealed envelope, who shall schedule its promulgation, giving notice to the prosecution, the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden, and counsel requiring their presence at the promulgation.

The promulgation shall consist of the reading by the Division Clerk of Court of the dispositive portion of the decision or resolution in the presence of the accused and a justice of the Division that rendered the same. If the accused is detained, the warden shall produce him before the Court. However, if he is detained outside Metro Manila, the Court may authorize the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place of detention to promulgate the decision or resolution at such place

(Rules of Court, Rule 120, sec. 6a)

SEC. 6. Entry of judgment and final resolution. – If no appeal or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter the judgment or final resolution in the book of judgment. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed the date of its entry. The entry shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the Clerk of Court, with a certification that such judgment or resolution has become final and executory. (Rules of Court, Rule 51, sec. 10a)

SEC. 7. Execution of judgment. – Upon the expiration of the period to appeal from a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding and no appeal has been duly perfected, execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion.

If an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, execution may be forthwith applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment oblige, submitting therewith a certified true copy of the judgment or final order sought to be enforced and of its entry, with notice to the adverse party.

(Rules of Court, Rule 39, sec. 1a)

RULE 15

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL

SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion. – Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution or order of the Court. He shall file a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the date he received notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in question. (RCTA, Rule 13, sec. 1a)

SEC. 2. Opposition. – The adverse party may file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration or new trial within ten days after his receipt of a copy of the motion for reconsideration or new trial of a decision, resolution or order of the Court. (RCTA, Rule 13, sec. 2a)

SEC. 3. Hearing of the Motion. – The motion for reconsideration or new trial, as well as the opposition thereto, shall embody all supporting arguments and the movant shall set the same for hearing on the next available motion day. Upon the expiration of the period set forth in the next preceding section, without any opposition having been filed by the other party, the motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be considered submitted for resolution, unless the Court deems it necessary to hear the parties on oral argument, in which the case the Court shall issue the proper order. (RCTA, Rule 13, sec. 3a)

SEC. 4. Effect of filing the motion. – The filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall suspend the running of the period within which an appeal may be perfected. (RCTA, Rule 13, sec. 4a)

SEC. 5. Grounds of motion for new trial. – A motion for new trial may be based on one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of the movant:

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial and, which, if presented, would probably alter the result.

A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then available and those not included shall be deemed waived.

(Rules of Court, Rule 37, sec. 1a)

SEC. 6. Contents of motion for reconsideration or new trial and notice. – The motion shall be in writing stating its grounds, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.

A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for proof of motions. A motion for the cause mentioned in subparagraph (a) of the preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted by counter-affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in subparagraph (b) of the preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.

A motion for reconsideration or new trial that does not comply with the foregoing provisions shall be deemed pro forma, which shall not toll the reglementary period for appeal.

(Rules of Court, Rule 37, sec. 2a)

SEC. 7. No second motion for reconsideration or for new trial. – No party shall be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration of a decision, final resolution or order; or for new trial. (Rules of Court, Rule 52, sec. 2a)

SEC. 8. Ruling. – The Court shall resolve the motion for reconsideration or new trial within three months from the time it is deemed submitted for resolution. (Rules of Court, Rule 52, sec. 3a)

RULE 16

APPEAL

SECTION 1. Appeal to Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. – A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Court en banc may appeal therefrom by filing with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution, as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. If such party has filed a motion for reconsideration or for new trial, the period herein fixed shall run from the party’s receipt of a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or for new trial. (n)

SEC. 2. Effect of appeal. – The motion for reconsideration or for new trial filed before the Court shall be deemed abandoned if, during its pendency, the movant shall appeal to the supreme Court pursuant to Section 1 of this Rule. (2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule VI, sec. 15a)

RULE 17

LEGAL FEES AND COSTS

SECTION 1. Additional fees and costs. – In addition to the fees prescribed in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and all amendments thereto, the following legal fees and costs shall be collected:

(a) For reception of evidence by a Court official pursuant to Section 4, Rule 12 of these Rules five hundred pesos for each day of actual sessions; and

(b) For any other services of the Clerk of Court and other Court officials not provided for in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, two hundred pesos.

RULE 18

EFFECTIVITY

SECTION 1. Effectivity of the Revised Rules. – These Rules shall take effect on the fifteenth day of December 2005 following their publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines not later than 25 November 2005. (n)

https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_05_11_07_cta_2005.html