leg tech cases

8/19/2019 Leg Tech Cases

1/23

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 147824 August 2, 2007

ROSA YAP PARAS, petitioner,

vs.

USTO . PARAS, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVA!"GUTIERRE#, J.$

This case presents another occasion to reiterate this Court’s ruling that the Guidelines set

forth in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Ronidel Olaviano Molina1 "do not reuire that a

ph!sician should ea#ine the person to be declared ps!chologicall! incapacitated. $hat isi#portant is the presence of evidence that can adeuatel! establish the

part!’s psychological condition."%

Assailed in this petition for revie& on certiorari under Rule '( of the 1))* Rules of Civil

Procedure, as a#ended, are the +a -ecision dated -ece#ber /, %000 and +b

Resolution' dated April (, %001 of the Court of Appeals in CA2.R. C3 4o. '))1(, entitled

"Rosa Yap-Paras, Plaintif-Appellant vs. Justo J. Paras, Deendant-Appe llee."

On Ma! %1, 1)5', petitioner Rosa 6ap #arried respondent 7usto 7. Paras in 8indo!, 4egros

Oriental. The! begot four +' children, na#el!9 Raoul +:, Cind! Rose +:, -ahlia, and Reuel.

T&ent!nine +%) !ears thereafter, or on Ma! %*, 1)), Rosa ;led &ith the Regional Trial Court

+RTC, 8ranch 1, -u#aguete Cit!, a co#plaint for annul#ent of her #arriage &ith 7usto,

under Article 5 of the he alleged that 7usto

is ps!chologicall! incapacitated to eercise the essential obligations of #arriage as sho&n b!

the follo&ing circu#stances9

+a he dissipated her business assets and forged her signature in one #ortgage

transaction?

+b he lived &ith a concubine and sired a child &ith her?

+c he did not give ;nancial support to his children? and

+d he has been re#iss in his duties both as a husband and as a father.

To substantiate her charges, Rosa o@ered docu#entar! and testi#onial evidence.

This is her stor!. >he #et 7usto in 1)51 in 8indo!. >he &as then a student of >an Carlos

niversit!, Cebu Cit!.(Be courted her, freuentl! spending ti#e at her "8otica."5 ventuall!, in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt1


2/23

1)5', convinced that he loved her, she agreed to #arr! hi#. Their &edding &as considered

one of the "#ost celebrated" #arriages in 8indo!.*

After the &edding, she and 7usto spent one +1 &ee= in -avao for their hone!#oon./ pon

returning to 8indo!, the! resided at her parents’ house. Dt &as their residence for three +

!ears until the! &ere able to build a house of their o&n.) tates. Ber sisters

supported the# throughout their t&o!ear sta! there. Bo&ever, after three #onths, 7ustoabandoned the# and left for the Philippines. pon her return to the Philippines, she &as

shoc=ed to ;nd her "!otica" and other businesses heav! in debt. >he then realiFed 7usto &as

a proGigate. At one ti#e, he disposed &ithout her consent a conHugal piece of land.15 At other

ti#es, he per#itted the #unicipal govern#ent to ta=e gasoline fro# their gas station free of

charge.

>he endured all of 7usto’s shortco#ings, but his act of #aintaining a #istress and siring an

illegiti#ate child &as the last stra& that pro#pted her to ;le the present case. >he found that

after leaving their conHugal house in 1)//, 7usto lived &ith 7ocel!n Ching. Their cohabitation

resulted in the birth of a bab! girl, C!ndee Rose, obviousl! na#ed after her +Rosa and 7ustoIs

deceased daughter Cind! Rose Paras.1*

As epected, 7usto has a di@erent version of the stor!.

Be #et Rosa upon his return to 8indo! after ta=ing the bar ea#inations in Manila.1/ Be

freuentl! spent ti#e in her store.1) 8elieving he loved her, he courted her and later on, the!

beca#e s&eethearts. Dn 1)5, the! decided to get #arried. Bo&ever, it &as postponed

because her fa#il! de#anded a do&r!. Their #arriage too= place in 1)5' upon his #other’s

signing a deed of conve!ance involving %/ hectares of coconut land in favor of Rosa.%0

Be bla#ed the subseuent dissipation of their assets fro# the slu#p of the price of sugar andnot to his alleged proGigac!.%1 -ue to his business ventures, he and Rosa &ere able to acuire

a 10roo# fa#il! house, epand their store, establish their gasoline station, and purchase

several properties. Be also denied forging her signature in one #ortgage transaction. Be

#aintained that he did not dispose of a conHugal propert! and that he and

Rosa%&'so()**+ signed the rene&al of a sugar crop loan &-o'& t& )(/s )uto'&3

&%*o+&&.%%

As to their #arital relationship, he noticed the change in Rosa’s attitude after her return fro#

the nited >tates. >he beca#e detached, cold, uncaring, and overl! focused on the fa#il!’s

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt22


3/23

businesses.% Be tried to reach her but Rosa &as steadfast in her "ne& attitudinal outloo=."

8efore other people, he #erel! pretended that their relationship &as blissful.%'

Be did not abandon his fa#il! in the nited >tates. Dt happened that the! onl! had tourist

visas. $hen the! &ere there, their children’s tourist visas &ere converted into stud! visas,

per#itting the# to sta! longer. he did not prepare food for the guests. $hen confronted, she

retorted that she has nothing to do &ith his birthda!. This convinced hi# of her lac= of

concern.%* This &as further aggravated &hen she denied his reuest for engine oil &hen his

vehicle bro=e do&n in a #ountainous and 4PAinfested area.%/

As to the charge of concubinage, he alleged that 7ocel!n Ching is not his #istress, but hersecretar! in his Ja& OKce. >he &as i#pregnated b! her bo!friend, a certain 2relle

Jeccioness. C!ndee Rose Ching Jeccioness is not his daughter.

After trial or on


4/23

>O OR-R-.

On -ece#ber /, %000 or nearl! t&o #onths after this Court pro#ulgated the -ecision in A.C.

4o. (, the Court of Appeals aKr#ed the RTC -ecision in the present case, holding that

"the evidence of the plainti@ +Rosa falls short of the standards reuired b! la& to decree a

nullit! of #arriage." Dt ruled that 7usto’s alleged defects or idios!ncracies "&ere suKcientl!

eplained b! the evidence," thus9

Certainl!, &e cannot ignore &hat is etant on the record L "rst , the inco#e &hich

supported their children ca#e fro# the earnings of their conHugal properties and not

singularl! fro# Rosa’s industr!? second, 7usto gave his share of the support to his

children in the for# of allo&ances, albeit s#aller than that derived fro# the conHugal

propert!? third, he &as booted out fro# their conHugal d&elling after he lost his bid for

reelection and as such did not voluntaril! abandon his ho#e? and ourth, although

unHusti;able in the e!es of the la& and #oralit!, 7usto’s alleged in;delit! ca#e after he

&as driven out of his house b! Rosa. .

The Court of Appeals li=e&ise held that Rosa’s inabilit! to o@er the testi#on! of a

ps!chologist is fatal to her case, being in violation of the tenets laid do&n b! this Court in

Molina.' Thus, she failed to substantiate her allegation that 7usto is ps!chologicall!incapacitated fro# co#pl!ing &ith the essential obligations of #arriage.(

Rosa ;led a #otion for reconsideration but it &as denied. Bence, the instant petition for

revie& on certiorari.

Rosa contends that this Court’s factual ;ndings in A.C. 4o. ( for disbar#ent

are 5o(5*ushe states that she could have presented an epert to prove the root cause of

7usto’s ps!chological incapacit! had she been reuired to do so.


5/23

The petition is bereft of #erit.

I

=&t&' t& -)5tu)* >(3(gs o- ts Cou't (

A.C. No. ?@@@ )'& 5o(5*usupre#e Court in the disbar#ent

case appellant ;led against her husband, na#el!, appellee’s falsi;cation of docu#ents

to obtain loans and his in;delit!, these facts, b! the#selves, do not conclusivel!

establish appellee’s ps!chological incapacit! as conte#plated under Article 5 of the


6/23

7urisprudence abounds that ad#inistrative cases against la&!ers belong to a class of their

o&n. The! are distinct fro# and #a! proceed independentl! of civil and cri#inal cases. T&

)s5 %'&s& s t)t 5'()* )(3 5'st t;o ;** (ot (&


7/23

s!#pto#s #a! be ph!sical. The evidence #ust convince the court that the parties, or

one of the#, &as #entall! or ps!chicall! ill to such an etent that the person could not

have =no&n the obligations he &as assu#ing, or =no&ing the#, could not have given

valid assu#ption thereof. Although no ea#ple of such incapacit! need be given here

so as not to li#it the application of the provision under the principle of e'usde&

generis, nevertheless such root cause #ust be identi;ed as a ps!chological illness and

its incapacitating nature full! eplained. E%&'t &igni;cantl!, the (e) Rules on Declaration o Absolute (ullity o *oid #arriages and

Annul&ent o *oidable #arriages,'( pro#ulgated b! this Court on March 1(, %00, geared

to&ards the relaation of the reuire#ent of epert opinion. >ection %, paragraph +d states9

+d +hat to allege. A petition under Article 5 of the &3 t)t t&'& s (o '&u'&&(t

t)t t& 3&-&(3)(t'&s%o(3&(t s%ous& sou*3 & %&'so()**+ &)(&3 + )

%+s5)( o' %s+5o*ogst )s ) 5o(3to( sine qua non -o' t& 3&5*)')to( o-

(u**t+ o- )'')g& )s&3 o( %s+5o*og5)* (5)%)5t+. Accordingl!, it is no longer

necessar! to allege epert opinion in a petition under Article 5 of the


8/23

the Philippines. >uch ps!chological incapacit!, ho&ever, #ust be established b! t&

tot)*t+ o- t& &igni;cantl!, the present case is eactl! a=in to Pesca v. Pesca.'/ Pesca ste##ed fro# a

co#plaint for declaration of nullit! of #arriage under Article 5 ;led b! a battered &ife

so#eti#e in April 1))'. The trial court, in its -ecision dated 4ove#ber 1(, 1))(, decreed the

#arriage void ab initio on the ground of ps!chological incapacit! on the part of the husband.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s -ecision, appl!ing theGuidelines set forth

in antos v. ourt o Appeals') and #olina.(0 $hen the #atter &as brought to this Court, the

&ife argued that antos and #olina should not have retroactive application, the 2uidelines

being #erel! advisor! and not #andator! in nature. >he sub#itted that the proper

application of antos and #olina &arranted onl! a re#and of her case to the trial court for

further proceedings, not a dis#issal. The Court declined to re#andPesca(1 on the pre#ise

that the antos and #olina 2uidelines "5o(sttut& ) %)'t o- t& *); )s o- t& 3)t& t&

st)tut& s &()5t&3," thus9

The Idoctrine of stare decisis,’ ordained in Article / of the Civil Code, epresses that

Hudicial decisions appl!ing or interpreting the la& shall for# part of the legal s!ste# of

the Philippines. The rule follo&s the settled legal #ai# L Ilegis interpretado legis vi&

obtinet ’ that the interpretation placed upon the &ritten la& b! a co#petent court hasthe force of la&. T& (t&'%'&t)to( o' 5o(st'u5to( %*)5&3 + t& 5ou'ts

&st)*s&s t& 5o(t&%o')(&ous *&gs*)t


9/23

SEC. 1. The >tate recogniFes the tate.

This >tate polic! on the inviolabilit! of #arriage has been enshrined in Article 1 of the tate provides refuge to the aggrieved spouse under Article 5 of the


10/23

its incapacitating nature full! eplained. pert evidence #a! be given b! uali;ed

ps!chiatrists and clinical ps!chologists.

+ The incapacit! #ust be proven to be eisting at "t& t& o- t& 5&*&')to(" of

the #arriage. The evidence #ust sho& that the illness &as eisting &hen the parties

echanged their "D do’s." The #anifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at

such ti#e, but the illness itself #ust have attached at such #o#ent, or prior thereto.

+' >uch incapacit! #ust also be sho&n to be &35)**+ o' 5*(5)**+ %&')(&(t o'

(5u')*&. >uch incurabilit! #a! be absolute or even relative onl! in regard to the

other spouse, not necessaril! absolutel! against ever!one of the sa#e se.

uch illness #ust be g')olicitor

2eneral to appear as counsel for the state. 4o decision shall be handed do&n unless

the >olicitor 2eneral issues a certi;cation, &hich &ill be uoted in the decision, brieG!

stating therein his reasons for his agree#ent or opposition, as the case #a! be, to thepetition. The >olicitor 2eneral, along &ith the prosecuting attorne!, shall sub#it to the

court such certi;cation &ithin ;fteen +1( da!s fro# the date the case is dee#ed

sub#itted for resolution of the court. The >olicitor 2eneral shall discharge the

euivalent function of the deensor vinculiconte#plated under Canon 10)(.

The foregoing Guidelines incorporate the basic reuire#ents #andated b! the Court in

>antos,(' to reiterate9 ps!chological incapacit! #ust be characteriFed b! +a gravit!? +b

Huridical antecedence? and +c incurabilit!.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt54


11/23

A revie& of the co#plaint, as &ell as the testi#onial and docu#entar! evidence, sho&s that

Rosa’s #ain grounds in see=ing the declaration of nullit! of her #arriage &ith 7usto are

his (>3&*t+, %'oJg)5+ ;5 (5*u3&s t& -)*s>5)to( o- &' sg()tu'& ( o(& o-

t& *o)( 3o5u&(ts, -)*u'& to su%%o't t& 5*3'&(, and))(3o(&(t o- t& -)*+.

8oth the courts belo& found the charges unsubstantiated and untrue. Bo&ever, this Court, in

A.C. 4o. ( for disbar#ent, found the evidence suKcient to support Rosa’s charges of

seual in;delit!, falsi;cation of her signature, and abandon#ent of fa#il!, thus9

ON T:E C:ARGE OF FA!SIFICATION OF COMP!AINANTS SIGNATURE

The hand&riting ea#ination conducted b! the 4ational 8ureau of Dnvestigation on the

signatures of co#plainant Rosa 6ap Paras and respondent 7usto de 7esus Paras visQvis the

uestioned signature "Rosa 6. Paras" appearing in the uestioned ban= loan docu#ents,

contracts of #ortgage and other related instru#ent, !ielded the follo&ing results9

CONC!USION$

1. The uestioned and the standard sa#ple signatures 7>TO 7. PARA> &ere

&ritten b! one and the sa#e person.

%. The uestioned and the standard sa#ple signatures RO>A 6AP PARA> &ere

not &ritten b! one and the sa#e person. +Anne "8", Rollo, p. %5, e#phasis

ours?

The 48D did not #a=e a categorical state#ent that respondent forged the signatures of

co#plainant. Bo&ever, an anal!sis of the above ;ndings lead to no other conclusion

than that the uestioned or falsi;ed signatures of co#plainant Rosa 6. Paras &ere

authored b! respondent as said falsi;ed signatures &ere the sa#e as the sa#ple

signatures of respondent.

To eplain this ano#al!, respondent presented a >pecial Po&er of Attorne! +>PA

eecuted in his favor b! co#plainant to negotiate for an agricultural or crop loan fro#

the 8ais Rural 8an= of 8ais Cit!. Dnstead of eculpating respondent, the presence of the

>PA places hi# in hot &ater. PA is to especiall! authoriFe the attorne!infact to sign for and on

behalf of the principal using his o&n na#e.

ON T:E C:ARGE OF IMMORA!ITY AND CONCUINAGE

The evidence against respondent is over&hel#ing. The aKdavitstate#ents of hischildren and three other persons &ho used to &or= &ith hi# and have &itnessed the

acts indicative of his in;delit! #ore than satisf! this Court that respondent has stra!ed

fro# the #arital path. The baptis#al certi;cate of C!ndee Rose Paras &here

respondent &as na#ed as the father of the child +Anne "7", Rollo, p. 10/? his na#ing

the child after his deceased ;rstborn daughter C!ndee Rose? and his allo&ing 7ocel!n

Ching and the child to live in their house in -u#aguete Cit! bolster the allegation that

respondent is carr!ing on an illicit a@air &ith Ms. Ching, the #other of his illegiti#ate

child.


12/23

$hile this Court is convinced that the charges hurled against 7usto b! Rosa, such as s&u)*

(>3&*t+, -)*s>5)to( o- &' sg()tu'&, ))(3o(&(t )(3 ()3&u)t& su%%o't o-

5*3'&(, )'& t'u&, nonetheless, there is nothing in the records sho&ing that the! &ere

caused b! a ps!chological disorder on his part. Dn other &ords, the tot)*t+ o- t&

&3&*t+ )(3

))(3o(&(t 3o (ot 5o(sttut& %s+5o*og5)* (5)%)5t+ )s&(t ) so;(g o- t&

%'&s&(5& o- su5 %'os5ut+ )t t& (5&%to( o- t& )'')g& , thus9

. Dn this case, respondent’s seual in;delit! can hardl! ualif! as being #entall! or

ph!sicall! ill to such an etent that she could not have =no&n the obligations she &as

assu#ing, or =no&ing the#, could not have given a valid assu#ption thereof. It

)%%&)'s t)t '&s%o(3&(ts %'os5ut+ 33 (ot &st prior to o' )t t&

(5&%to( o- t& )'')g&. =)t s, ( -)5t, 3s5*os&3 + t& '&5o'3s s )

*ss-u* )'t)* u(o( )t ts 5&*&')to(, *)t&' )'&3 ( 5u'5 't&s, )(3;5 %'o3u5&3 -ou' 5*3'&(.

Respondent’s seual in;delit! or perversion and abandon#ent do not b! the#selves

constitute ps!chological incapacit! &ithin the conte#plation of the


13/23

Dn arating-iayngco v. iayngco,(5 the &ife’s inabilit! to conceive led her husband to other

&o#en so he could ful;ll his ardent &ish to have a child of his o&n Gesh and blood. This Court

ruled that this is not a #anifestation of ps!chological incapacit! in the conte#plation of the

3&*t+ o' %&'CO4- -D3D>DO4

G.R. No. 12441. u(& 1, 1H

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_147824_2007.html#fnt61


14/23

ROUE VICARIO Y MENDE#, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEA!S )(3 PEOP!E OF T:E

P:I!IPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

E!!OSI!!O, J.$

ROS 3DCARDO 6 M4- &as charged &ith libel b! the Provincial Prosecutor of

Catar#an, 4orthern >a#ar, &ith 7udge Proceso >idro of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of

Mondragon>an Roue, 4orthern >a#ar, as co#plaining &itness. According to the

Dnfor#ation, the cri#e &as co##itted &hen 3icario allegedl! distributed and circulated in the

vicinit! of the 4orthern >a#ar Provincial Bospital in Catar#an photocopies of page * of the

%0 March 1))% issue of the Philippine Daily %n$uirer &hich contained the follo&ing article1N

A#AR J/DG0 +12 P23040D !2(D 1ARG0D +%41 GRA54

2#!/D#A( onrado *as$ue6 yesterday "led )ith the andiganbayan grat charges against

a (orthern a&ar 'udge )ho poceted the P7,888.88 cash bond posted by a respondent in

one o several cases pending in his sala.

harged )as Judge Proceso idro o the (orthern a&ar &unicipal circuit trial court in

#ondragon.

%nvestigation sho)ed that idro ailed to deposit the cash bond )ith his cler-o-court, and

reused to return the &oney even ater the accused )ho "led the bond )as already ac$uitted

in the case.

Private co#plainant >idro alleged that petitionerUs act greatl! preHudiced his reputation as

a #e#ber of the bench and caused hi# great distress. Petitioner 3icario on the other hand

disclai#ed responsibilit! for the distribution of the alleged libelous article, at the sa#e ti#e

asserting that the libel suit against hi# &as ill#otivated for he had ;led a cri#inal charge for

graft and corruption against 7udge >idro before the O#buds#an and an ad#inistrative

co#plaint for dishonest! &ith the >upre#e Court, both due to the latterUs unHusti;ed refusal

and failure to return petitionerUs cash bond of P1,000.00.

After trial, the court a $uo found petitioner 3icario guilt! of libel and sentenced hi# to pa!

a ;ne of P%00.00 &ith subsidiar! i#prison#ent in case of insolvenc!.%N The trial court Husti;ed

its decision b! declaring that &hile no evidence &as presented to sho& that 3icario

distributed copies of the ne&s article to several persons, at least he gave one photocop! to

prosecution &itness A#ador Montes &hich a#ounted to publication, and that this act &as

tainted &ith #alice as it ste##ed fro# 3icarioUs hatred, as evident fro# the #anner histesti#on! &as delivered, to&ards co#plaining &itness >idro.N

On %/


15/23

econd. Respondent court gravel! erred in concluding that A#ador Montes sa& petitioner

distributing cop! of the aforesaid issue of the Philippine -ail! Dnuirer?

4hird. Respondent court gravel! erred in considering the aKdavitco#plaint petitioner ;led

&ith the O#buds#an &hich &as co#pletel! i##aterial and i#pertinent to the issue of

&hether or not the act of petitioner in giving a cop! of the Philippine -ail! Dnuirer to A#ador

Montes &here the ne&s ite# &as published, constitutes the cri#e of libel?

5ourth. Respondent court seriousl! erred in citing authorities &hich are not applicable in

deciding &hether petitionerUs act of giving a cop! of the Philippine -ail! Dnuirer to A#ador

Montes constituted the cri#e of libel?

5ith. Respondent court gravel! erred in adopting the conclusion of the trial court that

petitionerUs act of giving a cop! of the Philippine -ail! Dnuirer to A#ador Montes &as

#otivated b! his intense hatred against 7udge >idro, it being clear that such act &as an

insuKcient and inadeuate evidence of the alleged intense hatred of petitioner? and,

ith. Respondent court gravel! erred, in the ;nal anal!sis, in not acuitting petitioner on the

ground of reasonable doubt.

T&o +% #ain issues are laid before us9 +a &hether the act of #erel! distributing a

photocop! of an article in a ne&spaper reporting that graft charges had been ;led against a

Hudge na#ed therein constitutes libel, and +b &hether 3icarioUs act &as proved be!ond

reasonable doubt.

Jibel is de;ned as a public and #alicious i#putation of a cri#e, or of a vice or defect, rea

or i#aginar!, or an! act, o#ission, condition, status or circu#stance tending to discredit or

cause the dishonor or conte#pt of a natural or Huridical person, or to blac=en the #e#or! of

one &ho is dead.5N Thus, the ele#ents of libel are9 +a i#putation of a discreditable act or

condition to another? +b publication of the i#putation? +c identit! of the person defa#ed?

and, +d eistence of #alice.*N

The evidence on record clearl! sho&s that the ele#ents above enu#erated have not

been satisfactoril! established as to conclude that libel &as co##itted b! petitioner. Thus, &e

rule in his favor.


16/23

Co#plaint. >ince it has not been established that he caused the publication of the subHect

article nor &as the source thereof, it &ould be inappropriate to conclude that through the

disputed ne&s ite# he ascribed a cri#inal act to 7udge Proceso >idro. Parentheticall!, it &ould

have been #ore accurate for the appellate court to state that the ne&s article &as culled

ro& the resolution o the 2&buds&an directing the "ling o a cri&inal charge based on the

results o his investigation o a co&plaint leveled against the na&ed 'udge. 8ut then, if it did

it &ould have been left &ith no basis at all to hold, as in fact it did, that 3icario #aliciousl!

i#puted a discreditable act to respondent Hudge, and there &ould be no #ore Husti;cation for

the ;nding that the ;rst ele#ent of libel &as established.

The trial court also opined that no suit arising fro# the publication &as ;led against the

ne&spaper because )hat appears settled is that the ite& )as &erely a air and true report,

)ith no co&&ents or re&ars, o o:cial or 'udicial proceedings )hich are not classi"ed as

con"dential. Again, a perusal of the subHect ne&s ite# con;r#s this fact. Then the trial court

proceeded to state that the accused +petitioner ho&ever publiciFed the ne&spaper ite#

because "sho)n by co&petent and relevant evidence )as the giving ;by *icario< o a ero

copy o the publici6ed ite& to A&ador #ontes.9 8ut &as petitioner indeed guilt! of

republication of a libelous article

Dn his appeal, petitioner disputes the eistence of the ele#ents of publication and #alice,/N arguing that inas#uch as he &as not the author or originator of the subHect article in

the Philippine Daily %n$uirer he could not be liable for its publication. The Court of Appeals

brushed aside this proposition, declaring in the #ain that b! having the ne&s ite# #achine

copied and furnishing prosectution &itness Montes a cop! thereof, accusedappellant thereb!

endorsed and adopted the ne&s ite# and hence &as ans&erable therefor. $e note the

A#erican citations relied upon b! the appellate court to support its conclusions. Bo&ever, &e

dee# these as not authoritative, #uch less persuasive upon the Court, considering further

that there are dissi#ilarities in the facts bet&een the cited cases and this case before us.

Contrar! to the perception of the appellate court, there &as no evidence at all o@ered to

sho& that petitioner hi#self photocopied the article. 4or &as evidence suKcientl! adduced to

prove that he hi#self distributed photocopies of the ne&s ite# to so #an! people, pro#pting

the trial court to rule as hearsa! the testi#on! on the #atter b! 7udge >idro and his protege

A#ador Montes. This puts to doubt &hether petitioner hi#self gave a cop! of the publication

to Montes. 4otabl!, Montes &as not even na#ed b! the Hudge as one of the original &itnesses

listed in the co#plaint he ;led for preli#inar! investigation. The &itness na#ed therein &as a

certain Ber#ito Pahi#na!an &ho &as never presented in court despite his having eecuted

an aKdavit &hich &as attached to >idroUs cri#inal co#plaint in the Municipal Trial Court. This

aKdavit described not the incident of %% Ma! 1))% on &hich the charge for libel &as based

but one &hich occurred so#eti#e in 1))1 or a !ear earlier during &hich 3icario &as said to

have sho&n Pahi#na!an a cop! of his ad#inistrative co#plaint against 7udge>idro. Moreover, in the aKdavit eecuted b! 7udge >idro &hich he also attached to his

co#plaint, he declared that it &as Ro#eo Pinanga!, his court #essenger, &ho gave hi# a

cop! of Philippine Daily %n$uirer and infor#ed hi# that Roue 3icario distributed clippings of

the ne&s ite# to ever!one in the pre#ises of the hospital. A#ador Montes &as never

#entioned in this aKdavit? #uch less &as he #ade to eecute an! aKdavit to support the

cri#inal co#plaint of 7udge >idro. This #uch he ad#itted on the &itness stand.)NOther than

the testi#on! of Montes hi#self, an ac=no&ledged subaltern of the Hudge, no one else &as

presented to establish the fact of distribution b! petitioner of copies of the alleged o@ensive

ne&s article.The prosecution could have o@ered other &itnesses &ith #ore obHective

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jun99/124491.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jun99/124491.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jun99/124491.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jun99/124491.htm#_edn9


17/23


18/23

necessaril! proceed fro# the fact that he &as the original publisher of the discreditable

act. The #a=er of a libelous republication or repetition, although not liable for the results of

the pri#ar! publication, is liable for the conseuences of a subseuent publication &hich he

#a=es or participates in #a=ing so long as the ele#ents of libel are satis;ed. 8ut in ever!

case #alice #ust be present, so#ething &hich has not been sho&n in the case at bar.

The la& presu#es that #alice is present in ever! defa#ator! i#putation. Bo&ever, on

this score, Art. (' of the Revised Penal Code provides an ee#ption

Art. ('. Re$uire&ent or publicity. ver! defa#ator! i#putation is presu#ed to be

#alicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and Husti;able #otive for #a=ing it is sho&n,

ecept in the follo&ing cases %. A fair and true report, #ade in good faith, &ithout an!

co##ents or re#ar=s, of an! Hudicial, legislative or other oKcial proceedings &hich are not of

con;dential nature, or of an! state#ent, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of

an! other act perfor#ed b! public oKcers in the eercise of their functions ;e&phasis

supplied


19/23

of the 4ational Jabor Relations Co##ission in 4JRC CA 4o. M00%)()*, &hich reversed the

Jabor Arbiters D&5so(,'N dated -ece#ber 15, 1))5, in 4JRC Case 4o. RA810010005*)(.

The facts, borne b! the records, are as follo&s9

Petitioner Ji#=et=ai >ons Milling, Dnc. +J>MD &ith principal oKce in Caga!an de Oro Cit! is

engaged in the #anufacture and processing of corn oil and coconut oil. Petitioners Alfonso .

Ji#, Albino . Ji#=et=ai, and ngr. JorenFo . Ji#=et=ai, are the authoriFed representatives

of J>MD. On 7une 15, 1)/%, J>MD hired respondent ditha Jla#era as a laborator! anal!st,

assigned at the ualit! control depart#ent.

>o#eti#e in March 1))', J>MD received reports that so#e of its oil products

particularl! #arca >eon ooing 2il and orn 2il had visible i#purities and rancid taste

Bence, it directed so#e of its e#plo!ees, including respondent, to eplain the reported

adulteration.

The concerned e#plo!ees, ecept respondent &ho &as then on #aternit! leave

sub#itted their respective &ritten eplanations. Dn the #ean&hile, the! &ere all placed under

preventive suspension.

MD i##ediatel! conducted a for#al investigation. -uring the investigation,

respondent, &ho &as bac= fro# #aternit! leave, denied having an!thing to do &ith the

adulteration of J>MDs oil products.

On 7une 5, 1))', J>MD ter#inated the services of the suspended e#plo!ees. Respondent

challenged her dis#issal and ;led against J>MD, a co#plaint for unfair labor practice, illegal

suspension and illegal dis#issal, and de#anded pa!#ent of bac=&ages, separation pa!,

#aternit! bene;ts, service incentive leave pa!, #oral and ee#plar! da#ages and attorne!s

fees.

Jabor Arbiter Conchita 7. MartineF ruled in favor of respondent, in a -ecision dated

-ece#ber 15, 1))5, thus9

$BRDJP %,(**.'0

d. 1th Month Pa! 1(,5*).1*

e. Maternit! 8ene;t *,)(0.00

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn4


20/23

f. Moral -a#ages (,000.00

g. e#plar! -a#ages (,000.00

TOTAJ P %*5,5%.%/

. Ordering respondents to pa! 10V of the total #onetar! a&ard as attorne!s fees.

>O OR-R-.(N

On appeal, the 4ational Jabor Relations Co##ission +4JRC reversed the above -ecision,

disposing that9

$BRet Aside &ith respect to the

;ndings that co#plainant &as illegall! dis#issed and that respondents co##itted acts of

unfair labor practice for lac= of factual and legal bases. The a&ard for bac=&ages is therefore

deleted for lac= of basis &hile the a&ard for separation pa! is #odi;ed and ;ed in

accordance &ith the ter#s of the Collective 8argaining Agree#ent entered into bet&een the

respondent co#pan! and the local union +JWW>DTechnical and >upervisor! nion$AT

concluded on Ma! 5, 1))'. The a&ards for #oral and ee#plar! da#ages are li=e&isedeleted for lac= of factual and legal bases. The rest of the #onetar! a&ards are sustained,

subHect to the above #odi;cation and reco#putation thereof b! the Arbitration 8ranch of

origin preparator! to the eecution stage.

>O OR-R-.5N

4ot satis;ed &ith the ruling, respondent ;led a #otion for reconsideration &ith the 4JRC.

Dt &as denied for lac= of #erit.

Thus, respondent ;led a special civil action for certiorari &ith the Court of Appeals. The

appellate court found respondents petition partl! #eritorious. The decretal part of its

-ecision, i#pugned in this petition, reads9

$BR


21/23

D

TBAT TB BO4ORA8J CORT O< APPAJ> 2RA3J6 RR- D4 CO4CJ-D42 TBAT TB

-CD>DO4 O< TB 4JRC D> 4OT >PPORT- 86 >8>TA4TDAJ 3D-4C.

DD

TBAT TB BO4ORA8J CORT O< APPAJ> 2RA3J6 RR- D4 CO4CJ-D42 TBAT TB

SAJDT6 CO4TROJ -PARTM4T $BR R>PO4-4T $ORW- $A> >D42J- OT.

DDD

TBAT TB BO4ORA8J CORT O< APPAJ> 2RA3J6 RR- D4 CO4CJ-D42 TBAT TBR $A>

4O 7>T A4-OR ATBORD- CA> TO TRMD4AT R>PO4-4T.

D3

TBAT TB BO4ORA8J CORT O< APPAJ> 2RA3J6 RR- D4 -46D42 TB MOTDO4 D-RATDO4./N

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in not according the 4JRCs evaluation

of evidence due respect and ;nalit!. Petitioners also allege that respondent &as not singled

out since all the laborator! anal!sts &ere invited to the hearing conducted b! J>MD.

Petitioners further point out that respondents position as laborator! anal!st is i#bued

&ith trust and con;dence, &hich &as breached &hen the oil products under her control &ere

returned due to its rancid taste and visible i#purities. Thus, petitioners argue, respondents

ter#ination for loss of trust and con;dence &as legal.

he insists that the inferior ualit! of J>MDs oil

products &as not attributable to her, but &as due to the lo& standards set b! the ne&

#anage#ent of J>MD. Maintaining that there &as no valid cause for her ter#ination, she

insists that she &as illegall! dis#issed.

At the outset, &e #ust stress that indeed petitioners have raised a factual issue, &hich is

not proper in a petition for revie&. Dn an appeal via certiorari, onl! uestions of la& #a! be

revie&ed.)N The #atter of &hether the ualit! control depart#ent &here respondent &or=ed

&as singled out is a factual issue, &hich had been ehaustivel! discussed and ruled upon b!the Court of Appeals.

>econdl!, the general rule is that the ;ndings of fact b! the 4JRC are dee#ed binding and

conclusive. Bo&ever, &here, as in the instant case, the ;ndings of fact b! the 4JRC contradict

those of the Jabor Arbiter, a departure fro# the general rule is &arranted. Dn t. #artin

5uneral 1o&e v. (>R,10N &e said that the Court of Appeals can revie& the factual ;ndings of

the 4JRC in a special civil action for certiorari.11N

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/130866.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/130866.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/130866.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/130866.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn11


22/23

Baving settled these peripheral #atters, the onl! re#aining issue for our resolution is

&hether the Court of Appeals co##itted grave abuse of discretion and gravel! erred in

;nding that respondent &as illegall! dis#issed.

Dn its ruling on the issue of illegal dis#issal, the Court of Appeals accorded #ore &eight to

respondents detailed and technical discussion of the cause of the reported adulteration. The

CA found unsubstantiated the petitioners s&eeping state#ent that respondent conspired in

the sabotage of petitioners oil products. Dn the #ind of the appellate court, petitioners si#pl!

failed to prove that respondents dis#issal &as for a valid cause.

$e sustain the -ecision of the Court of Appeals on this point.

Article %** +b of the Jabor Code provides9

ART. %**. #iscellaneous provisions. +b The burden of proving that the ter#ination &as for a

valid or authoriFed cause shall rest on the e#plo!er.

$here there is no sho&ing of a Hust or authoriFed cause for ter#ination of e#plo!#ent,

the la& considers the case a #atter of illegal dis#issal. The burden is on the e#plo!er to

prove that the ter#ination of e#plo!#ent &as for a Hust or authoriFed cause.1%N

Dn the case at hand, &e ;nd untenable petitioners clai# of breach of trust and con;dence

co##itted b! the e#plo!ee. Article %/% of the Jabor Code states9

ART. %/%. 4er&ination by e&ployer . An e#plo!er #a! ter#inate an e#plo!#ent for an! of

the follo&ing causes9

+c &illful breach b! the e#plo!ee of the trust reposed in hi# b! his e#plo!er or dul!

authoriFed representative?

The &illful breach b! the e#plo!ee of the trust reposed in hi# b! his e#plo!er #ust be

founded on facts established b! the e#plo!er. The latter #ust clearl! and convincingl! prove

b! substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon &hich loss of con;dence in the

e#plo!ee #a! fairl! be #ade to rest.1N

Dn this case, petitioners si#pl! allege that respondents failure to report to the ualit!

control head the batch that did not #eet the #ini#u# standard sho&ed connivance to

sabotage petitioners business. 4ot onl! is petitioners logic Ga&ed, it is an instance of

arguing non se$uitur . >aid allegation alone, &ithout proven facts to bac= it up, could not and

did not suKce as a basis for a ;nding of &illful breach of trust.

$e are thus constrained to hold that petitioners failed to prove the eistence of a valid

cause for the dis#issal of respondent. Therefore, the dis#issal #ust be dee#ed contrar! to

the provisions of the Jabor Code, hence illegal.

An e#plo!ee &ho has been illegall! dis#issed is entitled to reinstate#ent and full bac=

&ages, that is, &ithout deducting earnings earned else&here during the period of his illega

dis#issal.1'N Bo&ever, &here, as in this case, reinstate#ent is no longer feasible due to

strained relations bet&een the parties, separation pa! shall be granted in lieu of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/152514.htm#_ftn14


23/23

reinstate#ent. Dn addition to separation pa! and full bac= &ages, respondent is also entitled

to attorne!s fees euivalent to ten percent of the total #onetar! a&ard.1(N

=:EREFORE, the petition is -4D-. The assailed -ecision, dated Ma! %, %001, of the

Court of Appeals and its Resolution, dated P 4o. (0%*, are

A

leg tech cases

Documents