Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Silva vs.


499 SCRA 724


Aklan Electric Cooperative Inc. (AKELCO) failed to pay its obligation P2.5 million obligations resulting to power
cut off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning og the NEA take over. However, respondent remained as
Gen.Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of willful breach of trust and confidence.
Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the CA nullifying his removal on the ground
that Sec. 10 (e) of P.D 269 which provides for “suspension or removal and replacement” is reserved solely to the
NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement, CA granted the motion. Hence this petition.


Whether petitioner’s approval of the AKELCO- BOD’s resolutions suspending and terminating
respondent as AKELCO’s Gen.Manager valid.

Whether the NEA-BOA’s authorization for and confirmation of respondent’s suspensions and removal as
AKELCO Gen.Manager by petitioner as then NEA Administrator are legal.


Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending
and removing respondent to NEA for approval, therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization.

The SC noted, however, that petitioner’s counsel relied on several decisions of the CA in addition to SC cases to
buttress his arguments. The SC reminded counsel that decisions of the CA are neither controlling nor conclusive
on this court.
Nepomuceno vs. City of Surigao

560 SCRA 41


Petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC for recovery of Real Property and/or its Market Value” to
recover a lot which was occupied, developed and used as a city road by the respondent without
permission nor expropriation proceedings for its acquisition. Notwithstanding proposal for amicable
settlements, the city Mayor refused to pay. RTC granted petitioner P3,620.00 as compensation for moral
damages but affirmed the compensation awarded. Petitioner sought for the value at the time of actual
payment invoking the CA decisions with the substantial factual similarity in this case, as well as Article
1250nof the Civil Code.


Whether or not the value of the property at the time of actual payment will be the controlling will be
the controlling price for purposes of compensation.

Whether or not Article 1250 of the Civil Code can be applied.

Whether or not petitioners can properly insist on the decision of CA in another case.

HELD: Petition denied, in a long line of cases, it has been held that is the value of the property at the time of
taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation. We find no application for Article 1250 because it
pertains to contractual obligations.

Moreover, petitioner cannot properly insist on the application of the CA decisions. A ruling of the CA on any
question of law is not binding on this court, in fact, the court may review, modify or reverse on such ruling of the

RATIONALE: The power of the private property should be compensated only for what he actually losses; it is not
intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury.
Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa –Diana Realty and Development Corp.

346 SCRA 663

FACTS: Petitioner sold a parcel of land to Manuel Sy and SY Ka Kieng. The Deed of Sale executed between the
parties contained special conditions of sale: 1.) Submission of building plans for Ayala’s approval,2.) period of
construction, 3.) no resale of the said property. The buyers failed to construct and the lot was then sold to
herein respondent, with Ayala’s approval, promising to abide by the said special condition. Building plans of
“The Peak” were sent to Ayala and a substantially different one, to the building official of Makati. Ayala filed
before the lower court an action for specific performance of contractual obligation, in an alternative, rescission
of the sale, which was denied. Undeterred, Ayala tried to cause the annotation of a notice of lis penden on the
title but was denied by the Register of Deeds of Makati. The Land Registration Authority reversed the ruling but
was overturned by the CA. Rosa – Diana filed a Demurrer to evidence averring that Ayala failed to establish its
right to the relief sought which was sustained by the Trial Court. Ayala was guilty of abandonment and /or
estoppel due to its failure to enforce the terms of the deed of restrictions and special conditions of sale. The CA
affirmed the ruling of the Trial Court saying that the appeal is sealed by the Doctrine of the law of the case with
reference to a previous case. Thus Ayala is barred from enforcing the Deed of Restrictions. Hence the appeal on
this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not CA acted in manner not in accord with law and the applicable decision of the SC in
holding that the doctrine of the law of the case or stare decisis, operated to dismiss Ayala’s Appeal.

HELD: The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. The law of the case or stare decisis cannot be held
applicable in the case at bench. The sole issue raised before the appellate court was the propriety of the lis
pendes annotation.

Rationale: The ruling covered by the doctrine of the law of the case is adhered to in the single case where it
arises, but is not carried into other cases as precedent.

525 SCRA 759

FACTS: Respondent was employed by the petitioner and was assigned to the medical Record Section of the
Silliman University Medical Center. She was later promoted as the Head, the position she held until her
retirement at the age of 57 pursuant to the provisions of the petitioner’s retirement plan. Accordingly,
respondent received her retirement benefits. Three years after, respondent filed with the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner on the ground that said provision violates her constitutional right of security
of tenure and is contrary to the compulsory retirement age of 65. Petitioner was found guilty of illegal dismissal
by the Legal Arbiter. On appeal, NLRC reversed the ruling of the LA and upheld the validity of the retirement
plan. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied, nut modified its decision by the adjudging
the petitioner liable for additional retirement benefits. Respondents then appealed before the CA, which
affirmed the modified decision of the NLRC, Respondent opted to accept the adverse judgement. Petitioner, on
the other hand, filed a petition for Review on Certiorari in reference to its liability.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can still file a petition for Review on Certiorari in reference to its liability.

HELD: Petition denied. This court is already without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present petition by the
petitioner and respondents inaction and presumed acquiescence, respectively, the findings of the NLRC and the
CA, attained finality and thus, became final and executory not having been timely appealed.

505 SCRA 160

FACTS: USA had a naval base in Subic Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases
Agreement between the Philippines and the USA. Sometime in May 1972, the US invited the submission of bids
for the repair of its naval equipment. Eligio de Guzman and Co. submitted their bids. Subsequently, it receives to
telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals. On June 1972, the company received a letter which was
signed by William I. Collins of the US Navy stating that it did not qualify to receive an award because of its
unsatisfactory performance ratings. The company then filed a petition for in the trial court to issue Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, which the RTC affirmed. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not our courts have jurisdiction over the present case

Whether or not the respondent Judge erred in applying the case of Lyons vs. USA

HELD: petition granted. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in courts of
another State without its consent. The reliance placed on Lyons by respondent Judge is misplaced. In the case, it
can be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State Immunity from suit was purely gratuitous and
therefore obiter, thus it has no value as an imperative authority.

RATIONALE: The restrictive applications of State Immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of
its sovereign functions. In the case at bar, the projects are integral part of the Naval base devoted to the defense
of both the US and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government.