Temere Animus

Contracts are binding agreements, but ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation and disputes . The Supreme Court has consistently held that unclear contractual terms must be construed strictly against the party that drafted them , ensuring fairness and balance in legal agreements. Key Legal Doctrines on Contractual Interpretation 📌 Strict Interpretation Against the Drafter ✔ Courts prioritize fairness by holding the party responsible for ambiguity liable for misinterpretations. ✔ This prevents large corporations or dominant parties from unfairly manipulating contract terms . 📌 Extrinsic Evidence May Be Used to Clarify Ambiguous Contracts ✔ If a contract’s language is unclear , courts may examine external evidence such as the subject matter, relations between parties, and surrounding circumstances . ✔ Relevant Case: Heirs of Amparo del Rosario v. Santos (108 SCRA 43, 1981) 📌 Preference for Less Onerous Interpretations ✔ When ambiguity exists, courts prefer an inter...

The 1987 Philippine Constitution prescribes different voting requirements for various governmental decisions. These voting thresholds ensure checks and balances in legislative and executive functions, preventing unilateral actions and fostering democratic consensus. Majority Vote Requirements 📌 Election of Legislative Leaders ✔ Senate President and Speaker of the House – Elected by a majority vote of all respective Members (Sec. 16(1), Art. VI). 📌 Quorum in Congress ✔ A majority of each House constitutes a quorum for legislative business (Sec. 16(2), Art. VI). 📌 Commission on Appointments Decisions ✔ The Commission rules by a majority vote of all its Members (Sec. 18, Art. VI). 📌 Constitution of Commission on Appointments ✔ The Commission is formed within 30 days from the organization of Congress and may convene at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members (Sec. 19, Art. VI). 📌 Granting Tax Exemptions ✔ No law granting tax exemption shall b...

Citation: 739 SCRA 735 Contracts serve as binding agreements between parties, outlining rights, obligations, and conditions . The Supreme Court has established key doctrines governing contract interpretation, ensuring clarity, fairness, and adherence to legal standards . Definition and Legal Requisites of a Contract 📌 Definition ✔ A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons where one binds himself to give something or render a service (Article 1305, New Civil Code). 📌 Essential Requisites (Article 1318, New Civil Code) ✔ Consent – Agreement between contracting parties. ✔ Object Certain – Clear subject matter of the contract. ✔ Cause – The obligation that creates rights between the parties. Stages in Contract Formation Contracts pass through three distinct phases : 📌 Preparation (Negotiation Phase) ✔ Parties express interest and negotiate terms , culminating in an agreement. 📌 Perfection (Birth of the Contract) ✔ When parties agree upon all essential...

In credit agreements, acceleration clauses allow creditors to demand full payment upon default, ensuring timely collection. The Supreme Court case of KT Construction Supply, Inc. vs. Philippine Savings Bank (G.R. No. 228435) clarifies the validity and enforcement of acceleration clauses in financial contracts. Understanding Acceleration Clauses in Loan Contracts 📌 Definition ✔ An acceleration clause requires the borrower to pay the full balance of a loan before its original due date upon default or other specified conditions . 📌 When It Applies ✔ Non-payment of principal or interest ✔ Failure to apply insurance premiums ✔ Violation of loan terms 📌 Legal Recognition ✔ Courts have long upheld the validity of acceleration clauses, stating they produce enforceable legal effects . ✔ Relevant Case: General Motors Acceptance Corp v. Shuey (243 Ky. 74) Case Summary: KT Construction Supply, Inc. vs. Philippine Savings Bank Facts: On October 12, 2006 , KT Construction ...

Citation: 796 SCRA 675 at 683 - 688 Criminal convictions must be supported by clear, compelling, and moral certainty in evidence . The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that weaknesses in prosecution cases—such as coerced confessions, unreliable witnesses, and procedural violations—can justify acquittal . Key Legal Doctrines for Acquittal 📌 Extrajudicial Confessions Obtained During Custodial Investigation ✔ Confessions made without legal counsel or in violation of Miranda rights are inadmissible in court. ✔ Relevant Cases: People v. Nicandro (141 SCRA 289, 1986) ; People v. Santiago (147 SCRA 141, 1987) 📌 Failure to Establish Corpus Delicti ✔ The physical evidence proving the crime must be presented —mere allegations are insufficient. ✔ Relevant Case: People v. Mendiola (235 SCRA 116, 1994) 📌 Weak or Contradictory Testimony from Government Witnesses ✔ If witness accounts contain irreconcilable inconsistencies , the accused cannot be convicted. ✔ Relevant Cases...

The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental legal remedy designed to protect individual liberty against unlawful detention. It applies not only to cases of illegal confinement but also to disputes over rightful custody of minors . Scope and Application of Habeas Corpus 📌 Illegal Detention and Custody Disputes ✔ The writ is available in cases where a person is deprived of liberty or where custody is wrongfully withheld (Demaisip v. Cabcaban, 713 SCRA 13, 2014 ). 📌 Jurisdiction and Filing ✔ Petitions for habeas corpus may be filed in any proper Regional Trial Court (RTC) within the judicial region where enforcement is sought (Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera, 731 SCRA 194, 2014 ). 📌 No Service of Summons Required ✔ Unlike ordinary civil cases, habeas corpus petitions do not require service of summons (Id. ). 📌 Where to File a Habeas Corpus Petition ✔ Applications may be filed before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or RTC (In the Matter of the Petition for Habea...

The execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only final judgments may be executed . Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court , courts may grant discretionary execution only if “good reasons” justify immediate enforcement. Legal Requirements for Execution Pending Appeal 📌 Strict Conditions Must Be Met ✔ A motion must be filed by the prevailing party. ✔ Notice must be given to the adverse party. ✔ “Good reasons” must be clearly stated in a special order after a hearing . 📌 Jurisdiction of the Trial Court ✔ The RTC retains jurisdiction until all appeal periods lapse or appeals are perfected. ✔ If a motion for reconsideration is unresolved , the RTC may still act on execution requests . 📌 Limitations on Discretionary Execution ✔ Courts must ensure fairness —execution pending appeal cannot be used to create inequity . ✔ Personal circumstances (such as age or health of claimants) must be case-wide, not individual hards...

Writ of Amparo as discussed in the case of Mison v. Gallegos, 760 SCRA 363 [2015] The privilege of the writ of amparo is .an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of Amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Synopsis: The court in Mison v. Gallegos (2015) discussed the privilege of the writ of amparo as an extraordinary remedy to address the concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. The court emphasized the need for judicious use of this remedy to prevent its indiscriminate filing for unsubstantiated claims. In the case of Ja Hoon Ku's petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo, the court found his allegations to be unf...

G.R. No. 222980| March 20, 2017 LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. PARK N RIDE, INC./VICEST (PHILS.), INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B. JAVIER, respondents. Ponente: LEONEN, J.: Doctrines: At the onset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. In the present case, due to lack of any palpable error, mistake, or misappreciation of facts, this Court discerns no compelling reason to reverse the consistent findings of the appellate court and the labor tribunals. There is constructive dismissal when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclo...

Full Text:  See  https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63434 G.R. No. 180969, September 11, 2017, NOEL NAVAJA, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO or his successor, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jagna & Gracia-Hernandez, Jagna, Bohol, and ATTY. EDGAR BORJE, respondents. Ponente : PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Doctrines: Section 1 of PD 1829 defines and penalizes the acts constituting the crime of obstruction of justice, the pertinent portions of which read:  Sec. 1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:  (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of an...

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...