Daily Doctrine

1. Doctrines from cases penned

by the 2023 Bar Chair;
2. The latest En banc and Division
Decisions setting important
jurisprudential precedent;
3. Plus more

Petitioner v. Respondent
Date of Promulgation Ponente Division ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Under the definition provided in Section 3 (n) of the GOCC
Governance Act of 2011, the following elements can be distilled in
order to qualify as a government instrumentality with corporate
powers (GICP) or government corporate entity (GCE)
1. agency of the government;
2. neither a corporation nor agency integrated within the
departmental framework;
3. vested by law with special functions or jurisdiction;
4. endowed with some if not all corporate powers;
5. administering special funds; and
6. enjoying operational autonomy usually through a charter.

Light Rail Transit Authority v. City of Pasay

28 June 2022 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
A franchise is broadly defined as a special privilege that is NOT
demandable as a matter of right, and when granted, is subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by Congress.

While the power to repeal a franchise is broad and plenary, it

cannot be exercised arbitrarily or at whim. The exercise of this
power is further limited by the due process clause of the
Constitution.

The standard in determining whether a person was accorded

due process is whether the restriction on the person's life, liberty,
or property is consistent with fairness, reason, and justice, and
free from caprice and arbitrariness.

Manila International Ports Terminal v. Philippine Ports Authority

07 December 2021 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
First-level courts have jurisdiction on ejectment cases even if the
land is public in character as long as the case is not an agrarian
dispute. The public character of the land does NOT divest the
courts of jurisdiction over ejectment cases.

However, if the ejectment case is found to be an agrarian dispute,

the first-level courts will be divested of jurisdiction in accordance
with the CARL, as amended. The said law adds that the judge or
prosecutor shall automatically refer the case to the DAR if there is
an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in
nature, and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker or tenant.

The controlling aspect, therefore, is the nature of the dispute and

NOT the character of the subject land.

Dayrit v. Norquillas
07 December 2021 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
The Court NOW categorically rules that a void ab initio marriage
is a VALID defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without

a judicial declaration of absolute nullity.

However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused

cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the
criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage
is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was
contracted.

The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the

second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the
voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second
marriage is merely considered as voidable.

Pulido v. People
27 July 2021 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
The power to levy a franchise tax is bestowed only to provinces
and cities. Therefore, Section 25 of MO 93-35 which was enacted
when Muntinlupa was still a municipality and which imposed a
franchise tax on public utility corporations within its territorial
jurisdiction, is ultra vires for being violative of Section 142 of the
Local Government Code of 1991.

Section 56 of the Charter of Muntinlupa City has no curative effect

on Section 25 of MO 93-35, the latter being null and void. It
contemplates only those ordinances that are valid and legally
existing at the time of its enactment.

An ultra vires ordinance is null and void and produces no legal

effect from its inception.

Meralco v. City of Muntinlupa

09 February 2021 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
An impeached public officer whose civil, criminal, or administrative
liability was not judicially established may be considered
involuntarily retired from service and is entitled to the
retirement benefits provided under Republic Acts 9946 and 8291.

Impeachment is designed to remove the impeachable officer from

office, not punish him.

1. It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal, nor

administrative in nature.
2. No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a
mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus
lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that
must be properly filed with courts of law.

In re Former Chief Justice Corona

12 January 2021 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is
whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client.

This rule covers not only cases in which confidential

communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides

that lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.

Villamor v. Jumao-as (Decision and Resolution)

09 December 2020, 15 February 2022 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
The Supreme Court NOW holds that the death of a respondent in
an administrative case before its final resolution is a cause for
its dismissal.

If death extinguishes the criminal and civil liabilities arising from

criminal cases, then why should more rigid measures or penalties
be imposed in mere administrative cases.

The instant administrative complaint should be dismissed in view

of the Constitutional principle of due process, which is one of the
recognized exceptions to the general rule that the death of the
respondent does not preclude a finding of administrative liability.

Re Alleged Extortion Activities of Judge Abul (Resolution)

08 September 2020 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
A petition for declaratory relief is an action instituted by a
person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any
question of construction or validity arising from the instrument,
executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of
his rights and duties thereunder.

It must be filed BEFORE the breach or violation of the statute,

deed or contract to which it refers; otherwise, the court can no
longer assume jurisdiction over the action.

In not dismissing the petition, the public respondent committed

grave abuse of discretion.

COA v. Pampilo, Jr.

30 June 2020 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Gross misconduct has been defined as any inexcusable,
shameful or flagrantly unlawful conduct on the part of the
person involved in the administration of justice, conduct that is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of the cause.

The filing of several groundless suits and the reservation of filing

another perjury suit in the future despite the pendency of
another perjury case reveal Respondent’s gross indiscretion as a
colleague in the legal profession, in blatant violation of his oath
and duties as a lawyer. Such acts are contrary to the following
Rules and Canons in the CPR: Canon 8; Rule 10.03; Rule 12.02; Rule
12.04.

Pagdanganan v. Plata
26 February 2020 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence pertains to
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other
persons may be affected.

Respondent’s acts of heavily depending on his subordinates

without carefully examining the documents presented to him for
disbursement of funds clearly exhibit his flagrant and culpable
unwillingness to perform his official duties.

Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal

even for the first offense.

CSC v. Beray
10 December 2019 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
While the Regalian doctrine is state ownership over natural
resources, police power is state regulation through legislation,
and parens patriae is the default state responsibility to look
after the defenseless, the Public Trust Doctrine brings these
doctrines into a cohesive whole.

In this framework, a relationship is formed — the state is the

trustee, which manages specific natural resources and the trust
principal — for the trust principal for the benefit of the current
and future generations — the beneficiaries. The public is
regarded as the beneficial owner of trust resources, and courts
can enforce the public trust doctrine even against the
government itself.

Maynilad v. SENR
06 August 2019 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
A non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee AND still
comply with the MCLE requirements within a sixty (60)-day
period, otherwise, he or she will be listed as a delinquent IBP
member.

The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the

lawyer who fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within
the compliance period and is in no way a grant of exemption
from compliance to the lawyer who thus paid.

The directive to comply with the MCLE requirements is essential

for the legal profession, as enshrined in BM No. 850.

Turla v. Caringal
12 March 2019 Hernando, J. En banc ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
For a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce to
prosper, the party pleading it must prove
1) the fact of divorce and
2) the national law of the foreign spouse.

The fact of divorce may be established not only by presenting

the foreign judgment, but also through a Divorce Report for a
divorce that was coursed not through Japanese courts, but
through the Office of the Mayor which issues such document.

However, a photocopy of the English translation of the Civil Code

of Japan, published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc. DO NOT prove the
existing law on divorce in Japan. Thus, a remand of the case
rather than its outright dismissal is proper.

Republic v. Kikuchi
22 Jun 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Under the Trust Receipts Law, if the goods are not sold or
otherwise disposed, the entrustee shall return the goods
themselves. The law punishes the entrustee's failure to turn over
the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered, or to return the
goods themselves if not sold.

Under Section 13 of the law, such failure shall constitute the crime
of Estafa under Art 315, par 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

The offense of violation of the Trust Receipts Law is malum

prohibitum—mere failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale, or
to return the goods themselves if not sold, amounts to the
violation.

Chua v. Secretary of Justice

15 Jun 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(URACCS) provide that the administrative offense of Conviction
of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude is a grave offense that is
punishable with dismissal from service upon first commission.

The Rules further provide that aggravating, mitigating, and

alternative circumstances attendant to the offense may be
appreciated in determining the penalties to be imposed.

Here, petitioner's length of service cannot be applied as a

mitigating circumstance. Bigamy, a crime involving moral
turpitude, cannot be taken lightly.

Gonzalbo-Macatangay v. Civil Service Commission

15 Jun 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Registration is NOT a recognized mode of acquiring ownership
but binds the whole world, especially innocent purchasers for
value. The nature of a sale is a consensual contract because it is
perfected by mere consent.

Thus, the sale of the subject property between Zenaida, herein

Petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, and the Respondents was
valid and binding despite the failure to immediately register the
sale in the Register of Deeds.

Purchasers must continuously possess their status as buyers in

good faith from the time they acquired the property until they
register the property under their name.

Heirs of Gonzales v. Spouses Basas

15 Jun 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Summary judgment is a procedural device that allows parties to
avoid long litigation and delays, where the pleadings show that
there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried.

A genuine issue of fact is such issue of fact which requires the

presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious,
contrived, or false claim.

Here, petitioner's argument that the respondents admitted that

the TCT is already in its name is just one of the pieces of
evidence for the trial court to assess in making a ruling for this
case. The motion for summary judgment is thus improper.

Aljem's Credit Investors Corp. v. Spouses Bautista

25 Apr 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Rescission will NOT be granted in the following:

1) where the breach is only slight or casual;

2) where there has been substantial compliance; and
3) where the court finds valid reason for giving a period of
fulfillment of the obligation.

The failure on the part of the Republic to move for execution or

to move for revival of judgment could NOT be considered as a
substantial breach.

The Republic already complied with the main prestation of the

deed of conditional donation which is the construction of the
mental hospital and a concrete road.

Estate of Rodriguez v. Republic

27 Apr 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine
Annulment of judgment may either be based on the ground
that a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the
judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. It may be availed of
only when other remedies are wanting.

Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is,

the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition
because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject
matter.

As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is

the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered
therein.

Heirs of Procopio Borras v. Heirs of Eustaquio Borras

25 Apr 2022 Hernando, J. ecodalplus
 Daily Doctrine +
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, provides the
procedural safeguards that the apprehending team must
observe in the custody and handling of seized illegal drugs in
order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence.

Otherwise known as the Chain of Custody Rule, the prosecution

has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous
drug and account for each link from the moment it is seized up
to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime.

Out of the ten cases penned by Hernando, J., nine of them—an

astounding 90%—resulted in the ACQUITTAL of the accused due
to lapse in observing the Chain of Custody Rule.

The Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

An Overview of Cases Penned by Hernando, J.
The four links of the Chain of Custody Rule are as follows:

1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered

from the accused by the apprehending officer;
2) the turn-over of the seized illegal drug to the investigating officer;
3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4) the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic
chemist to the court.

In the first link, certain witnesses are required to be present during the conduct
of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items.

Before RA 10640 Media DOJ

Any elected
either a representative from the public official
After RA 10640 National Prosecution Service or the
media.

While the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the
confiscated items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a
showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required
witnesses must first be adduced by the prosecution.
The table below presents a summary of the cases penned by Hernando, J.

Chain of Custody
Case Date Violation ACQUIT
1 2 3 4

3. The testimony of the person who received the illegal drugs

from the apprehending and investigating officer was ABSENT.
People v. 15 Jun
Hernandez 2022 x x 4. Failure to place the forensic chemist on the witness stand ✔
raised nagging questions regarding the post-examination
custody.

1. The police officers did not mark, inventory, or photograph the

confiscated items immediately after the seizure; and no
insulating witnesses were likewise present.

CICL XXX v. 2 Mar

People 2022 x x x 2. The investigating officer was the one who marked the ✔
evidence even if he was not present during the actual seizure.

3. It is not clear if the investigating officer properly turned over

the seized items to the crime laboratory.

1. The apprehending officer admittedly did not immediately

mark the elongated plastic sachets at the place of the
apprehension but only made the marking at the police station.
The sachets were mingled with each other.

28 3. There is no evidence on record indicating how the

People v.
Mariano
Feb x x x investigating officer handled and preserved the identity of the ✔
2022 seized drugs while he was in possession thereof before handing
it over to the forensic chemist.

4. There are also no informative details as to how the chemist

handled and preserved the identity of the seized drugs before
and after the qualitative examination.
 Chain of Custody
Case Date Violation ACQUIT
1 2 3 4

28
People v. 1. There were no representatives from the media and
Vinluan
Feb x the DOJ.
✔
2022

1. Only the barangay official was present during the

time the police officers conducted the inventory of the
seized drugs; and the Inventory/Confiscation Receipt
23 was not signed by the accused or by his counsel or
People v.
Ortega
Feb x x representative. ✔
2022

3. Dispensation with the testimony of the forensic

chemist did not fully cover the necessary pieces of
information as required by jurisprudence.
23
Uy v. 1. An inventory report was not accomplished by any of
People
Feb x the police officers.
✔
2022

15 The seized items never left the apprehending officer's possession all
People v.
Batino
Nov throughout the operation. The Court is convinced that the rules on X
2021
chain of custody were followed.
05
People v.
Baluyot
Oct x 1. There was no representative from the DOJ ✔
2020

24 1. The Inventory of Property/Seized shows that there

People v.
Arellaga
Aug x was only one (1) witness, a representative from the ✔
2020
Media.

09
People v. 1. The police only managed to secure the presence and
Addin
Oct x signature of a representative from the media.
✔
2019

ecodalplus