BAR

OPERATIONS 1

SUBMISSION # 6

CASE Nos. 75 - 87

Submitted by: YSABELLE M. CARDONA

LLB – IV
Palawan State University – School of Law
S.Y 2020 – 2021

Submitted to: ATTY. ALLAN B. CARLOS

Professorial Lecturer
75. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. ELENITA V. ABELLO
GR NO. 242570, September 18, 2019
FACTS: A complaint for Cancellation/Discharge of Mortgage/Mortgage lines was
filed by Elenita Abello against petitioner. The complaint involves parcels of land
registered under the names of Sps. Sps. Manuel and Elenita Abello. Inscribed on the
TCTs were various encumbrances. Over the two lots covered by TCT inscribed were
the real estate mortgage (REM) obtained by the SPs. Abello from the petitioner.
Manuel died and his heirs executed declaration of heirship. In their complaint, the
respondents sought for the cancellation of the inscriptions claiming that since the
petitioner made no action against them for 23 years, the action has already
prescribed. Accordingly, the respondents argued that they should be discharged as a
matter of right and the encumbrance cancelled. RTC rendered judgment in favor of
the plaintiff. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in ordering the cancellation of the annotated
encumbrances of the subject TCTs.
RULING: No. A REM is an accessory contract constituted to protect the creditor's
interest to ensure the fulfillment of the principal contract of loan. By its nature,
therefore, the enforcement of a mortgage contract is dependent on whether or not
there has been a violation of the principal obligation.30 Simply, it is the debtor's
failure to pay that sets the mortgage contract into operation. Prior to that, the
creditor-mortgagee has no right to speak of under the REM as it remains contingent
upon the debtor's failure to pay his or her loan obligation.
Stated otherwise, the mortgagor would be unable to establish his or her right to pray
for the cancellation of the encumbrances without first establishing that the debt has
already become due, as it is only at that time that the debtor's right to foreclose the
property arise and the prescriptive period begins to run. Indubitably, the presentation
of the contracts evidencing the loan and the mortgage is necessary as the
respondents' cause of action is anchored on these documents.33 As the
respondents failed to allege more so, adduce sufficient evidence to establish that
prescription has set in, it is clear that the action must be denied and the complaint
dismissed for want of cause of action.
76. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANTHONY CHAVEZ Y VILLAREAL
@ESTONG
GR No. 235783, September 25, 2019
FACTS: In a criminal case, Estong was charge with rape under Article 266-A, par. 1
of the RPC. In another criminal case, Estong and Bautista were both charged with
violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Upon arraignment, Estong and Bautista
entered a plea of not guilty. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape and child abuse. The RTC found
that Estong, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor,
against her will. The RTC held that Estong was also guilty of sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 against BBB. The RTC ruled that Bautista was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the commission of the crime of sexual
abuse.
ISSUE: Whether Estong is guilty of rape under under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a)
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
Whether Estong and Bautista are guilty of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA
7610.
RULING: (1) No. In convicting Estong of the crime of rape against AAA, both the
RTC and CA heavily relied on AAA's testimony and the Medico-Legal Report. A
perusal of the records of the case negates the conclusion of both the RTC and CA
that the carnal knowledge between Estong and AAA was accompanied by force or
intimidation on the part of Estong. In AAA's testimony, she claimed that she freely
and voluntarily went to Estong's house to watch television. AAA also alleged that it
was not the first time she had carnal knowledge with Estong. As a matter of fact, in
AAA's testimony, despite the alleged previous incidents of carnal knowledge with
Estong, AAA still voluntarily went to Estong's house when she was invited to watch
television.
(2) The elements of sexual abuse are the following, to wit: (l) the accused commits
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with
a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child,
whether male or female, is below eighteen (18) years old. the prosecution
established beyond reasonable doubt that Estong committed sexual abuse on BBB.
According to BBB's testimony, Estong undressed her, mashed and sucked her
breasts and caressed her vagina. Bautista cooperated in the commission of the
sexual abuse against BBB by inviting BBB, by assisting in the commission of the
crime, and by assisting in Estong's escape.
77. FRANCISCO C. DELGADO vs. GQ REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP
GR No. 241774, September 25, 2019
FACTS: Francisco was married to Carmencita. During the time of their marriage, the
coupled produced 5 children. Carmencita died. Petitioner met Victoria Quirino
Gonzales, despite their advanced age, the two took another shot at love and entered
into a special relationship. In their time together, petitioner learned that Victoria was
formerly married to Luis Gonzales (Luis) who passed away. Luis, Victoria and
Children started a corporation, GQ Realty Development Corp.
Francisco offered to help Victoria by supposedly buying real properties using his own
money, but the naked title would be named after respondent GQ Realty. A
condominium purchased on Petitioner’s money was thereafter issued a
Condominium Certificate of Title under the name of respondent.
Francisco and Victoria got married. After 20 years of marriage, Victoria passed
away. Petitioner learned that Victoria’s children with Luis distributed among
themselves the properties held in trust by Victoria’s corporations, including GQ
Realty. Petitioner discovered that subject property was transferred from respondent
GQ to respondent Rosario.
On respondent version, before Victoria and Francisco’s marriage, the two executed
an Ante-Nuptial Agreement which states, that their properties would be governed by
complete separation of properties.
Petitioner filed a verified complaint for reconveyance, declaration of nullity of sale
and damages against respondent. Petitioner asserted his right over the subject
property based on implied trust.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner Francisco, in executing the Ante-Nuptial Agreement,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished his alleged interest over the subject
property.
RULING: No. taking into consideration the foregoing material allegations in the
Complaint, despite the subject property being registered in the name of respondent
GQ Realty, petitioner Francisco's act of purchasing the subject property using his
own funds was a genuine act of gratuity in favor of Victoria. Consequently, since
petitioner Francisco declared in the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, which was executed
after the purchase of the subject property, that he was explicitly discharging any and
all interest in all gifts that he had theretofore bestowed upon Victoria, petitioner
Francisco's alleged interest in the subject property has been completely waived in
favor of Victoria.
78. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
GR No. 208480, September 25, 2019
FACTS: Petitioners filed an application for the identification, delineation and
recognition of the ancestral land initially before the NCIP City Office pursuant to the
provisions of RA 8371 (Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997) IPRA. The
petitioners alleged that the subject ancestral land has been occupied, possessed
and utilized by them and their predecessor-in-interest for 120years. NCIP ordered
the issuance of 8 Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) under petitioners’
name as well as that of Nilmer.
Peitioner seeking to annul, reverse and set aside resolution of the NCIP through this
instant petition. In its resolution, NCIP held that private respondents Pirasos and
Abanags have vested rights over their ancestral land on the basis of a native title. On
appeal, the CA agrees with the finding of the NCIP that Baguio City is no different
from any part of the Philippines and that there is no sensible difference that merits
the city’s exclusion from the coverage of the IPRA.
ISSUE: Whether Baguio City are not covered by IPRA, hence NCIP has no
jurisdiction to issue CALTS over lands within Baguio City.
RULING: Yes. Republic Act No. 8371 (RA 8371) or the "Indigenous Peoples' Rights
Act of 1997" (IPRA) expressly excludes the City of Baguio from the application of the
general provisions of the IPRA. Section 78 of RA 8371 provides that "[t]he City of
Baguio shall remain to be governed by its Charter and all lands proclaimed as part of
its townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by
appropriate legislation."
The clear legislative intent is that, despite the enactment of the IPRA, Baguio City
shall remain to be governed by its charter and that all lands proclaimed as part of
Baguio City's Townsite Reservation shall remain to be a part of the Townsite
Reservation unless reclassified by Congress. The NCIP cannot transgress this clear
legislative intent. The IPRA expressly excludes land proclaimed to be part of the
Baguio Townsite Reservation. Absent legislation passed by Congress, the Baguio
Townsite Reservation shall belong to the public and exclusively for public purpose.
79. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ADONIS CABALES
GR NO. 213831, September 25, 2019
FACTS: Cabales was charged with the crime of rape in an information. Cabales
pleaded on guilty. On January 16, 2005, at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 13-
year-old AAA was sleeping in a bedroom inside their house when she was woken up
by Cabales' kiss on her face. Cabales is AAA's uncle, being the husband of BBB's
sister. AAA bolted upright and tried to push Cabales away. Cabales, however, held
her hand and pointed a fan knife at her neck, and warned her not to shout or move.
He proceeded to remove AAA's jogging pants and panty, undressed himself, and
inserted his penis into her vagina. Cabales ignored AAA's pleas for him to stop and
instead made push-and-pull movements inside her for ten (10) minutes. After he was
done, Cabales threatened AAA not to tell anybody, and left. Immediately thereafter,
CCC,8 the husband of BBB's cousin who at that time was tending their eggplant
garden, knocked at their door and asked for water. When AAA opened the door,
CCC asked AAA what she and Cabales were doing. She initially denied but CCC
told her that he saw the sexual act and advised her to tell her parents about it. With
CCC assistance, AAA's family learned about the incident. AAA stated that she would
never have reported it to her parents were it not for CCC witnessing her and Cabales
having sexual intercourse.
ISSUE: Whether the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyong reasoble doubt.
RULING: No. These arguments notwithstanding, Cabales' guilt has already been
established beyond reasonable doubt. There is great premium accorded to a victim
of rape, as it is usually the victim alone who can testify on the forced sexual
intercourse.22 If the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can
justifiably be convicted on the basis of her lone testimony.23 Here, AAA categorically
pointed to Cabales as the perpetrator of her rape and laid out her accusations with
overt clarity. The inconsistencies alleged are deemed minor details that can be
overlooked. We accord due respect to the factual findings and appreciation thereof
by the trial court as it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and
hear their testimonies at the first instance, much more as the CA affirmed the trial
court's judgment of conviction in all its substantial respects
80. SIMEONA, GLORIA and RODOLFO (ALL SURNAMED PRESCILLA) vs.
CONRADO LASQUITE
GR No. 205805, September 25, 2019
FACTS: The instant case stems from a complaint for Reconveyance and Damages
filed by Petitioners Prescilla against respondent Lasquite. Petitioner claimed to be
the tillers of parcels of land (subject property) located at San Mateo. According to
petitioner, they have been in possession in concepto de dueno of the subject
property since 1940, planting, cultivating crops thereon. However, it was alleged that
the respondent Lasquite and Andrade were able to fraudulently obtain Original
Certificate of Titles covering the subject properties.
RTC rendered its Decision5 which, while upholding petitioners Prescilla, et al.'s right
of ownership over Lot No. 3052, upheld the respondents Lasquite and Andrade's
rights of ownership over the subject property.
ISSUE: Whether RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of
execution against petitioners Prescilla, et. Al.
RULING: Yes. As to petitioners Prescilla, et al., whose Motion for Reconsideration is
still pending before the CA, Eighth Division, it must be stressed that the controversy
has not been resolved with finality. Consequently, as far as petitioners Prescilla, et.
al. are concerned, there is no judgment that is already ripe for execution.
81. NOR JELAMIN MUSA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR No. 242132, September 25, 2019
FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
When arraigned, petitioners entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. The
prosecution alleged that PCI Juaneza received confidential information about a
purported plan to transport illegal drugs to Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental.
Specifically, a white multi-cab vehicle with plate number NBD-270. Armed with said
information, they arranged the conduct of a checkpoint to intercept the vehicle.
When about 10 meters, the police officers saw the subject multi-cab heading towards
the checkpoint, prompting the police officers to prepare to flag down the vehicle.
Before reaching the vicinity of the checkpoint, the multi-cab stopped and abruptly
changed direction, prompting the police officers to pursue the evading vehicle. After
a brief chase, the police officers stopped and came upon the multi-cab, which had
halted. PO2 Alvarez noticed that Abdilla was clutching his left hand. Upon SPO2
Alvarez order, Abdilla handed one transparent heat sealed plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance, which was identified as “shabu”. Upon receipt of the
plastic sachet, Police officer marked the same.
RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. CA
affirmed petitioners’ conviction, sustaining the RTC’s position that the warrantless
search and arrest of petitioners in this case was valid, as the search of a moving
vehicle is an exception to the rule that no search or seizure shall be made except by
virtue of a valid warrant.
ISSUE: Whether CA erred in upholding the judgment of conviction of petitioners for
the offense charged.
RULING: The prosecution failed to established transport of illegal drugs. The
identities of the petitioners as the persons who were driving and/or riding the multi-
cab purportedly used to transport illegal drugs have not been established with
absolute certainty.
Nevertheless, the police officers testified that they were able to confiscate a heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 18.4349 grams of white crystalline
substance in the possession of Abdilla, which, upon qualitative examination, was
determined to contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.48
In view thereof, petitioners may, in theory, still be held liable for Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 by virtue of the variance
doctrine as enunciated in Section 4,49 Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. The rule is
that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as
charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved included in that which is charged. An offense charged necessarily
includes that which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of
the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.50 On this
score, the transport of the illegal drugs would necessarily entail the possession
thereof.
82. ANGELICA ANZIA FAJARDO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R No. 239823, September 25, 2019
FACTS: Fajardo was charged with malversation of public funds. Fajardo was the
Cashier V and designated OIC, prize payment teller division, Treasury Department of
the Philippine Charity Sweeptakes Office (PCSO). As such, she exercised direct
supervision and control over paying tellers and other employees assigned in the
division, instituted procedures in actual payment of prizes, conducted actual count of
paid winnings tickets and requisitioned cash from the Assistant Department Manager
for distribution to paying tellers. By virtue of her position, Fajardo was likewise
authorized to draw a cash advance in the amount of 3Million, from which 2Million
was intended as payment of sweeptakes and lotto low-tier prizes, while 1Million was
devoted for the PCSO-Pacific Online Systems Corporation Scratch IT Project.
On the basis of 1 letter-complaints protesting the inability of the prize payment
division of the treasury department to pay the winning scratch it tickets on time, as
well as the delay in the replishment of the teller. During audit, it was discovered that
there was a shortage of 1,877,450 from the total accountability of 3Million.
ISSUE: Whether CA correctly upheld Fajardo’s conviction for the crime charged.
RULING: The elements of the crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a public
officer; (b) he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of
his office; (c) the funds or property are public funds or public property for which he
was accountable; and (d) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.45 After
a judicious perusal of the case, the Court finds the confluence of the foregoing
elements to uphold Fajardo's conviction.
As the records show, Fajardo was a public officer, being the Cashier V and OIC,
Division Chief III, Prize Payment (Teller) Division of the Treasury Department of
PCSO. Her duties as such required her to handle cash,46 as in fact, at the time
material to this case, Fajardo was authorized to draw a cash advance in the amount
of P3M intended as payments for sweepstakes and lotto low-tier prizes and the
PCSO - POSC Scratch IT Project. By reason thereof, Fajardo had in her custody
public funds in the total amount of P3M for which she was clearly accountable.
Unfortunately, part of the said funds went missing while in her custody. After the
conduct of two (2) spot audits on her account, a total deficit in the amount of
P1,877,450.00 was discovered, which she failed to explain or produce upon
demand. Her failure to account for the said moneys thereby gave rise to the
presumption that she had converted the funds to her personal use, which
presumption she failed to rebut with competent evidence.47 Accordingly, her
conviction for the crime charged stands.
83. MULTISTIQ, INC and JUDIT LABURADA vs. MINDS VIEW GRAPHICS ADS
GR No. 195773, October 1, 2019
FACTS: Petitioners entered into a deed of conditional sale with the respondents for
the sale of Format Inkjet Printer valued at 3Million. Both parties agreed on a 24-
month instalment plan for the payment of the printer. The petitioner delivered another
unit, but the same was also defective. Respondents wrote a letter to the petitioners
stating the defect in the unit and a request for technical support under its warranty.
Petitioners demanded an advance payment for the repair or replacement of the
printer heads subject for reimbursement upon approval under the warranty clause.
Respondents had only paid for 4 months or a total amount of Php500,000.
Petitioners opted to cancel the deed of conditional sale because the remaining
balance remained unpaid.
Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents for recovery of possession with
replevin and damages. It was able to recover possession of the printer machine
pending litigation. Respondent thereafter filed an action for Recission of Contract
and/or breach of warranty.
ISSUE: Whether there is a forum shopping in the instant case.
RULING: Yes. There is forum shopping when a party repeatedly avails himself of
several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court. The test for determining forum shopping is whether
the element of litis pendentia is present, or whether a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia refers to the situation where two
actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such
that either of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
84. DAISY D. PANAGSAGAN VS. ATTY. BERNIE Y. PANAGSAGAN
A.C No. 7733, October 1, 2019
FACTS: Complainant Daisy got married to respondent, Atty. Bernie. Their marriage
was strong but respondent entered into an illicit relationship with a fellow employee,
Corazon Igtos at LTFRB. Respondent and Igtos begot 2 children. Complainant
averes that respondent immoral conduct was known not only by their officemates,
but by the community. Their illicit affair showing pictures of the romantic relations of
respondents with his paramour were uploaded in an online social networking site.
Respondent packed his things and told complainant he was leaving the conjugal
home. Upon tip from a friend, complainant found respondent living with Corazon in
San Rafael, Mandaluyong. Inside their residence, complainant saw a picture of
respondent with his concubine together and took it. When respondent noticed the
picture missing, she asked complainant to return it but the latter refused.
Respondent then got mad and boxed complainant several times and bumped her
head against the cement wall. The mauling of complainant was witnessed by their
minor child who was with her.
Respondent returned to their house to get all the things acquired together as
spouses. Since then, respondent never returned home and instead decided to live
for good with his concubine. This time respondent completely abandoned
complainant and their child. Educational and support has been stopped.
In his answer, respondent denied extra-marital affair with Corazon but admits having
fathered Igtos’ children.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law due to
his immoral acts and abandonment of family.
RULING: Yes. The code of professional responsibility mandates all lawyers to
possess good moral character at the time of their application for admission to the
Bar, and requires them to maintain such character until their retirement from the
practice of law.
For a lawyer to be imposed the extreme penalty of disbarment for immorality, the
conduct complained of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral.
Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. A
married attorney’s abandonment of his spouse in order to live and cohabit with
another unquestionably constitutes gross immorality because it amounts to criminal
concubinage or adultery.
85. FIRST GREAT VENTURES LOANS, INC. rep. by. Dr. Agnes Espiritu vs.
Process Server Robert Mercado
A.M. No. P-17-3773, October 1, 2019
FACTS: Respondent was assigned in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Angeles City, misrepresented himself as a sheriff of
the Regional Trial Court in Angeles City and on the basis of his misrepresentation
collected money from the complainant’s delinquent clients without knowledge or
consent of the complainant and without remitting the sums collected to the
complainant.
Complainant charged the respondent with Grave Misconduct for misrepresenting
himself as a Sheriff of RTC to their delinquent debtors. Mercado collected from them
payment of their unpaid loan with another misrepresentation that their cases were
already turned over to him and as such their payments should be coursed through
him. However, Espiritu alleged that the payments that Mercado was able to collect
from their borrowers were not remitted to First Great Venture.
ISSUE: Whether respondent was correctly found to be guilty of grave misconduct.
RULING: Yes. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which
must be established by substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.[7]
The actions of the respondent, being tainted with a corrupt design, willful intent to
violate the law, and disregard of established rules, constituted grave misconduct.
Firstly, the respondent misrepresented himself as a sheriff of the RTC in Angeles
City in order to enable himself to collect unpaid debts of the complainant's clients.
His misrepresentation amounted to blatant dishonesty and deception because he
was by no means a sheriff assigned in the court. His dishonesty and deception were
designed to achieve a corrupt purpose considering that he had absolutely no reason
or justification to introduce himself as a sheriff unless it was to ensure the collection
from the complainant's delinquent debtors. Moreover, his dishonesty and deception
contravened his oath of office as a process server, for he then knew that he had no
capacity whatsoever to act as a sheriff. He complicated his deception by issuing
acknowledgment receipts purportedly as such sheriff.
And, secondly, the respondent's dishonesty and deception were for the purpose of
obtaining personal gain. Such actuation was strictly prohibited under the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel. Indeed, Section 1 of Canon 1 prohibited court
personnel from using their official positions "to secure unwarranted benefits,
privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others." In delivering the demand
letters to the complainant's clients, the respondent unquestionably abused his
position as a court personnel to intimidate the complainant's clients just to force them
to pay to him. We should point out that his mere act of receiving money from the
complainant's clients when he had no right to do so was the antithesis to his being a
court employee.

86. EDGAR M. RICO vs. ATTYS JOSE MADRAZO, ANTONIO TAN and LEONIDO
DELANTE
A.C NO. 7231, October 1, 2019
FACTS: Complainant alleged in his complaint that he is an allocatee of a certain
parcel of land. Coconut trees are being grown in the said land. Respondents filed
before PHILCOA an application for Permit to Cuty these coconut trees with
attachment of several Affidavits of Non-Encumbrance and Affidavit of Marking the
Coconut trees which they intend to cut. These affidavits were supposedly
acknowledged by Madrazo and Tan before Delante; upon verification of the
genuineness and validity of these affidavits, complainant found out that the
document numbers and page numbers marked on these affidavits, as appearing on
the Notarial Register of Delante, correspond to other documents, such as a deed of
absolute sale, a secretary's certificate, and other affidavits executed by persons
other than Madrazo and Tan. Complainant contends that respondents are guilty of
fraud, deceit, malpractice and other gross misconduct in attaching invalid and
spurious documents to their application for Permit to Cut coconut trees.
Hence, complainant filed a complaint for suspension or disbarment against
respondent on grounds of fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer and violation of the
Notarial Law.
ISSUE: whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that respondents are guilty of
fraud, malpractice, violation of the Notarial Law and other gross misconduct in
connection with their submission and notarization of supposedly invalid and spurious
documents attached to their application for Permit to Cut coconut trees on the
disputed property.
RULING: In the present case, respondent Delante is administratively liable for
infractions in relation to his notarial acts and in keeping and maintaining his notarial
register. His assignment of identical document numbers, page numbers and book
numbers to several distinct documents on different dates, his failure to make the
proper entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, and his delegation
of his notarial function of recording entries in his Notarial Register to a member of his
staff is a clear contravention of the explicit provisions of the Rules on Notarial
Practice. He is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires lawyers to "promote respect for law and legal
processes." Moreover, his delegation to his secretary of his notarial function of
recording entries in his notarial register is a breach of Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the
same Code, which provides that "a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the Bar in good standing."

87. GUBAT WATER DISTRIC (GWD) vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

GR NO. 222054, October 1, 2019.
FACTS: Petitioner Gubat Water District (GWD) is a government entity organized and
existing under Presidential Decree No. 198 (PD 198), other known as the Provincial
Water Utilities Act of 1973.
On August 31, 1979, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Letter of
Implementation No. 97 (LOI 97) which, among others, directed additional financial
incentives to be paid to government officers and employees including those in
government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs). These additional financial
incentives included the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA).[4]
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758), otherwise known as the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 mandated that allowances and
additional compensations received by government officers and employees, including
those working in government-owned or controlled corporations and government
financial institutions (GFIs) be consolidated into the standardized salary rates
provided in the law.
Thereafter, the DBM issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (CCC No. 10),
directing that effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted
in addition to the basic salary, including COLA, were deemed discontinued. CCC No.
10 did not provide for any qualification.
ISSUE: whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 has legal force and effect notwithstanding
the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette.
RULING: On the need for publication of subject DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the
affirmative. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada, publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since
DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which
is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently, to be effective and
enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which
completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to
government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere
interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not,
when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional
compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least,
before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their
income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and
alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines — to the end that they be given amplest
opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their
stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts
and rudiments of fairness and transparency.