THE NEED FOR LEGAL
RESEARCH
For LRTW112
Jean Vieve C. Clemente
JD-ID
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
• De Roy vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 80718,
January 29, 1988]
• Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11,
2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C,
Office of the Ombudsman [A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC,
March 2, 2010]
FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR.,
GLENIA BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF
MARISSA BERNAL, namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ
BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL, SR., respondents.
GR No. 80718
January 29, 1988
CORTES, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• The firewall of a burned-out building owned by the petitioners (De Roy, et.
al.) collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop owned by the family of
private respondents (Bernal, et. al.).
• It resulted to injuries to private respondents, and the death of Marissa
Bernal, a daughter.
• Petitioners warned private respondents to vacate the shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the latter were not able to do so.
• Hon. Antonio M. Belen of the Regional Trial Court First Judicial Region
Branch 38 found petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded
damages to private respondents
FACTS OF THE CASE
• Appealed the case to Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. CV No. 07286]
promulgated on Aug. 17, 1987, affirmed the RTC Decision.
• Petitioners received said CA Decision on August 25, 1987
• On September 9, 1987, petitioners filed Motion for Extension of Time
to File Motion for Reconsideration denied on a Resolution dated
September 30, 1987 – due to the ruling on the Habaluyas Enterprises,
Inc. vs. Japzon [138 SCRA 46]
• Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 24, 1987 denied
for being filed out of time
RATIO BEHIND THE TWO C.A. RESOLUTIONS:
• HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. JAPZON [138 SCRA 46]
• The fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration
cannot be extended
• Motion for extension of time can only be filed in the Supreme Court, as the
court of last resort
• Grace period – one month after this ruling does not observe yet its strict
application
• Prospective application follows the grace period.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• Filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari to seek to declare
null and void the two (2) Resolutions of Special First Division
of the Court of Appeals
• Petitioners argue that the ruling in the Habaluyas case
should not be applied because of its not publication in the
Official Gazette.
ISSUE/S:
• WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
AFFIRMING THE RTC’S DECISION.
• WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
RESOLVING TO DENY PETITIONERS’ MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION.
RULING:
• NO. There is no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC decision
by the CA
• Petitioners were liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code – “the
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage
resulting for its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs”.
• Petitioners’ argument that respondent Bernal, et. al, had the “last clear
chance” to avoid the accident by vacating their shop, so their negligence
can be excused has no merit because this “last clear chance” only
applies to vehicular accidents.
RULING:
• NO. The Supreme Court did not find a grave abuse of discretion in denying
the two motions of the petitioner.
• Contrary to petitioners’ view, there is no law requiring the publication of
Supreme Court Decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding
as a condition of their becoming effective.
• IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF COUNSEL IN ACTIVE LAW PRACTICE TO KEEP
ABREAST OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT PARTICULARLY WHERE
ISSUES HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED, CONSISTENTLY REITERATED AND PUBLISHED
IN THE ADVANCE REPORTS OF SC DECISIONS, SCRAs AND LAW JOURNALS
RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED
JANUARY 11, 2015 OF ACTING
DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C,
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC
March 2, 2010
PER CURIAM
FACTS OF THE CASE
• Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano filed a
complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against former Chief
Justice Davide, et. al. for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended.
• A subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Office of the Ombudsman to
require the Chief of the Office of Administrative Services or his
authorized representative to bring the latest Personal Data Sheets and
last known forwarding address of Davide, et. al.
• Order (Ombudsman) dated February 4, 2010 dismissed the complaint
and referring it to the Supreme Court per Memorandum issued on July
31, 2003
GROUNDS FOR THE COMPLAINT:
• The retired Chief Justice and retired Associate Justice allegedly
committed the following unlawful acts (Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843):
• 1) Overturning the findings of fact of the CA;
• 2) Stating in the Resolution that the "Chin-Mallari property overlaps
the UP property," when the DENR Survey Report stated that the "UP
title/property overlaps the Chin-Mallari property;"
• 3) Issuing a Resolution, for which three Justices voted, to set aside a
Decision for which five Justices voted.
ISSUE/S:
• WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED IS VALID.
• WHETHER OR NOT THE OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THIS KIND OF COMPLAINT.
RULING:
• A) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM MUST BE REASONABLE AND RELEVANT
• The Office of the Ombudsman has authority to issue subpoenas relating to
matters under its investigation
• Subject to the terms of the Constitution and the laws of the land, Rules of the
Court and applicable jurisprudence
• SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FALLS UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF
REASONABLENESS AND RELEVANCE.
RULING
• B) POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
• The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land with the power to
review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower
courts.
• It has the authority to promulgate rules on practice, pleadings and
admission to the bar, and suspend the operation of these rules in the
interest of justice.
• Thus, contrary to the complainants Lozano’ assertions in their complaint,
the Supreme Court, in the proper cases, can and does rule on factual
submissions before it, and even reverses the lower court’s factual findings
when the circumstances call for this action.
B) POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
• A simple jurisprudential research would easily reveal that this Court
has had the occasion to rule on the liability of Justices of the Supreme
Court for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019—the very same
provision that the complainants Lozano invoke in this case.
• In re Wenceslao Laureta [G.R. No. L-68635]
• In re Joaquin T. Borromeo [A.M. No. 93-7-696-0]
-> It is held that (1) judgments of the Supreme Court are not reviewable;
(2) administrative, civil and criminal complaints against a judge should not be
turned into substitutes for appeal; (3) only courts may declare a judgment
unjust; and (4) a situation where the Ombudsman is made to determine
whether or not a judgment of the Court is unjust is an absurdity.
RULING
• C) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WERE MISUSED
• Complainants cite Article X, Section 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution
that required concurrence of at least 5 Justices, but shall be decided
en banc if otherwise.
• Pael v. CA was promulgated on 2003 with only 3 concurring Justices.
• Had the complainants bothered to carefully consider the facts and developments
in Pael and accordingly related these to the applicable constitutional provision,
they would have discovered that Pael was decided in 2003 when the 1987
Constitution, not the 1973 Constitution, was the prevailing Charter.
• Section 4(3), Article VIII -- Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members.
RULING
• D) THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
• The criminal complaint in this case failed to allege the facts and
circumstances showing that the retired Justices acted with partiality,
bad faith or negligence.
• A judicial officer’s act in reviewing the findings of fact in a decision
and voting for its reversal cannot by itself constitute a violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the absence of facts, alleged
and proven, demonstrating a dishonest purpose, conscious partiality,
extrinsic fraud, or any wrongdoing on his or her part.
COMPLAINANTS’ POTENTIAL LIABILITY AS
MEMBERS OF THE BAR
• The complainants gave a slanted view of the powers of this Court to suit
their purposes; for these same purposes, they wrongly cited and
misapplied the provisions of the Constitution, not just any ordinary statute.
• As lawyers, the complainants must be familiar and well-acquainted with
the fundamental law of the land, and are charged with the duty to apply
the constitutional provisions in light of their prevailing jurisprudential
interpretation.
• At the very least, their transgressions are blatant violations of Rule 10.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language
or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
