Atty. Phil Juris

 Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., Respondents. [ G.R. Nos. 217126-27. November 10, 2015 ] Facts: This case revolves around the issue of whether the condonation doctrine, as applied to elective officials, still holds validity in light of the principles of public accountability and the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority. Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. (Binay Jr.) was elected as Mayor of Makati City for multiple terms. During his tenure, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation into alleged irregularities in the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The investigation resulted in the filing of administrative and criminal charges against Binay Jr. However, Binay Jr. argued that he cannot be held administratively liable for the alleged offenses committed during his previous term as Mayor. He relied on the condonation doctrine, which holds that the re-el...

  Presumptive Death | Art. 41, Family Code Q: After her husband, Ricardo , filed a petition for declaration of absence or presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage, the RTC declared Celerina presumed dead. Ricardo subsequently remarried. Ricardo claimed in his petition for declaration of absence or presumed dead that he and Celerina rented an apartment in San Juan, Metro Manila, after their marriage. One year later, they relocated to Tarlac City. They were engaged in the business of buying and selling. Ricardo asserted that their business was unsuccessful. Therefore, Celerina persuaded him to permit her to work as a housekeeper in Hong Kong. Ricardo first refused, but upon Celerina's urging, he granted her permission to work overseas. She reportedly submitted her resume to an employment agency in Ermita, Manila.  Two months later, she left Tarlac and was never heard from again. Additionally, Ricardo asserted that he made steps to locate Celerina. He visited Celerina's ...

  RE: Technical Malversation; OMB’s determination of probable cause |   It is well-settled that the Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman’s determination of whether or not probable cause exists except when it commits grave abuse of discretion.   Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law. Thus, we held in  Roxas v. Vasquez , “[…} this Court’s consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon p...

MIPT, INC. vs. PPA [G.R. No. 196199. December 07, 2021] ⚖️ HERNANDO, J   FACTS In this case, the Defendant-Appellant, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), is a government corporation responsible for overseeing the Manila International Port Terminal Complex (MIPTC). The Plaintiff-Appellee, Manila International Ports Terminal, Inc. (MIPTI), is a private domestic corporation engaged in port-related services. The dispute dates back to the 1970s when MIPTI was granted a franchise to operate container terminals and related services at North Harbor. However, in the mid-1980s, issues arose concerning MIPTI's alleged violations and poor performance. PPA, citing these concerns, recommended the revocation of MIPTI's franchise, which was ultimately revoked by an executive order issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino. The then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) No. 30 revoking MIPTI's franchise due to substantial violations of the MOA, which resulted in the det...

  BPI vs. CBP and Citibank, G.R. No. 197593. October 12, 2020.) Facts BPI (Petitioner) and Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) (Respondent), both of which are members of the Clearing House supervised by the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP), discrepancies totaling P9 million were discovered in the inter-bank reconciliation statements of BPI's Laoag City Branch in January 1982. Petitioner BPI filed a complaint with the CBP, alleging irregular charges to its demand deposit account. A separate investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) revealed a pilferage scheme orchestrated by a criminal syndicate within the CBP's Clearing Division. This scheme involved the infiltration of CBP's Clearing Division, pilfering "out-of-town" checks, tampering with vital banking documents, and opening current accounts at BPI Laoag City Branch and Citibank's Greenhills Branch. The fraudsters deposited checks drawn against BPI into Citibank, concealing their origins. The al...

  RE: Petition for bail; Rule 65; Duties of the Court in a Petition for Bail In a petition for bail, the Court is only mandated to determine whether based on the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, proof evident exists or the presumption of guilt is strong. The Court's  certiorari  jurisdiction covers only errors of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan. It should be borne in mind that not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Errors in the appreciation of the parties' evidence, including the conclusions anchored on these findings, are not correctible by the writ of  certiorari. [Here], In this regard, Napoles bears the burden of showing that the Sandiganbayan's denial of her bail application was capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic, so as to amount to grave abuse of discretion. This Court is not a trier of facts. As such, it must be established that there was...

  RE: Civil vs. Criminal Cases | Jurisdiction It is settled that venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.1 Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), ...

 SC Applies CPRA in Disbarring Lawyer for Falsifying Court Order   SC Applies CPRA in Disbarring Lawyer for Falsifying Court Order |  During its session on August 22, 2023, the Court En Banc promulgated its 11-page Per Curiam Decision imposing the supreme penalty of disbarment on Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang for fabricating a supposed Order dated August 2, 2006 in Civil Case No. 206-16977, granting a purported petition for presumptive death of his client’s  husband.  Atty. Maglalang made it appear that he filed the said petition on behalf of his client who, in reality, directed him to file not a petition for presumptive death but a petition for nullity of marriage. He also made it appear that the petition was heard and granted by Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Bacolod City.  In determining Atty. Maglalang’s liability, the Supreme Court applied the recently promulgated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability ...

  Crime mala prohibita vs. Crime mala in se; Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 RE: Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 crime mala prohibita; [ G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021 ] RE: Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 is crime a mala in se; CONCURRING OPINION, [ G.R. No. 224946. November 09, 2021 ] Economic abuse is one of the acts of violence punished by RA 9262: "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common; 3. destroying household property; 4. controlling the victim...