Inocentes vs. People case digest - remedial law 1- criminal procedure , G.R. No. 205963-64, July 7, 2016

 

Inocentes vs. People, G.R. No. 205963-64, July 7, 2016

Facts: Inocentes and 4 other public officers, being the Branch Manager, Division Chief III, Property Appraiser III, and Senior General Insurance Specialist of GSIS conspiring and confederating with De Guzman by approving the housing loans of 491 borrowers of De Guzman’s housing project under the GSIS Bahay Ko Program, with a total amount of loans amounting to Php 241M, knowing fully well that the said borrowers were not qualified and were not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Tarlac City, thereby giving said borrowers unwarranted benefit and causing damage and prejudice to the government and to public interest in the said amount and granting loans under the GSIS Bahay Ko Program to 53 borrowers of De Guzman’s land development project amounting to Php52M, despite the knowledge of the fact that the lots covered were intended for commercial purposes and by causing the over-appraisal of the land and buildings offered as collaterals, thus causing undue injury to the Government.

Sandiganbayan maintained its jurisdiction over the case because Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, specifically includes managers of GOCCs – whose position may not fall under Salary Grade 27 or higher – who violate R.A. No. 3019.

Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case as Inocentes held a position with a Salary Grade of 26.

Held: Violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed by presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities shall be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandganbayan. Sandiganbayan maintains its jurisdiction over those officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, regardless of their salary grades. Simply put, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided they hold the positions enumerated by the law. In this category, it is the position held, not the salary grade, which determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Furthermore, as the Sandiganbayan correctly held, even low-level management positions fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Sandiganbayan was correct in denying Inocentes’ motion to quash; hence, there was no grave abuse in the exercise of its discretion regarding this matter.

The Sandiganbayan is ORDERED to DISMISS the case against Inocentes for violating Inocentes' right to a speedy disposition of his case.

Mesina vs Meer, G.R. No. 146845, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 625 - Case Digest - Remedial Law 1- Civil Procedure - Rule 38 - Petition for relief from judgment

 

Spouses Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. Humberto D. Meer , G.R. No. 146845, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 625

Case Digest - Remedial Law 1- Civil Procedure - Rule 38 - Petition for relief from judgment

PUNO, J.:

Facts: Meer is a registered owner of a parcel of land. He applied for a loan to construct a house thereon. However, he discovered that his certificate of title has been cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of spouses Bunquin. The latter acquired said property by virtue of a deed of purportedly executed by Meer in their favor. Meer sought the cancellation of TCT. On the same day, a notice of lis pendens was annotated at the back of TCT. While the case was pending, TCT was cancelled and replaced by another in the name of the spouses Mesina. It appears that the subject property has been conveyed to them even prior to the annotation of lis pendens. The transfer of the title from Bunquin to Mesina was effected. Spouses Bunquin never appeared during the hearings, leading the court to declare them in default.

MeTC ruled that the alleged sale between Meer and Banquin was fraudulent. However, Mesina were adjudged buyers in good faith and thus were entitled to the possession of the subject property.  RTC ruled that Mesina were not purchasers in good faith, that it is the registration of the Deed of Sale, and not the date of its consummation that will confer title to the property. Since the Deed of Sale was registered subsequent to the annotation of the lis pendens, Mesina were bound by the outcome of the case. CA affirmed RTC. After reglementary period for appeal has lapsed, Mesina filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment and prayed that the CA set aside its resolution.

Issue: Whether or not the remedy of a petition for relief under Rule 38 may be availed of from a judgment of the Court of Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Mesina: their failure to file the requisite appeal on time was largely due to the delay of counsel of record to produce the requested documents of the case. The present Rule extends the remedy of relief to include judgments or orders of the Court of Appeals since the Rule uses the phrase "any court". 

Meer:  the ground raised by Mesina (extrinsic fraud) should have been filed before the court of origin, the MeTC, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure as amended.

Held: No. Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is present.

Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision. Rule 38 now allows the MTC which decided the case or issued the order to hear the petition for relief. Under the old rule, petition for relief from the judgment or final order of municipal trial courts should be filed with the RTC.

As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals allow the remedy of petition for relief in the Court of Appeals.

The petitioners’ allegation of extrinsic fraud should have been brought at issue in the MTC. If they truly believe that the default of the spouses Mesina prejudiced their rights, they should have questioned this from the beginning.

When the Meer appealed to the RTC they never raised this issue. Even after the RTC reversed the finding of the MeTC, and the CA sustained this reversal, Mesina made no effort to bring this issue for consideration.