GR No.

225544
ROGEL N. ZARAGOZA v. KATHERINE L. TAN
Piercing the veil of corporate entity applies to determination of liability not of jurisdiction.
xxx

This is so because the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction comes to play only
during the trial of the case after the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the
corporation. Hence, before this doctrine can be applied, based on the evidence
presented, it is imperative that the court must first have jurisdiction over the corporation.

G.R. No. 185530

MAKATI TUSCANY CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. MULTI-REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Reformation of an instrument is a remedy in equity where a valid existing contract is

allowed by law to be revised to express the true intentions of the contracting parties.51 The
rationale is that it would be unjust to enforce a written instrument which does not truly
reflect the real agreement of the parties.52 In reforming an instrument, no new contract is
created for the parties, rather, the reformed instrument establishes the real agreement
between the parties as intended, but for some reason, was not embodied in the original
instrument.53

An action for reformation of an instrument finds its basis in Article 1359 of the Civil Code
which provides:

Article 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract,
their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the
agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the
parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention
may be expressed.

If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds
of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of
the contract.

G.R. No. 208638

SPOUSES FRANCISCO ONG and BETTY LIM ONG, and SPOUSES JOSEPH ONG
CHUAN and ESPERANZA ONG CHUAN v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

Article 1170 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when parties to a contract may
be held liable for damages, viz.:
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
liable for damages.

G.R. No. 217993

MANUEL R. BAKUNAWA III v. NORA REYES BAKUNAWA

Dr. Villegas' conclusion that Manuel is afflicted with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and
that Nora has Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder which render them
psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code,19 is solely based on
her interviews with Manuel and the parties' eldest child, Moncho. Consequently, the CA
did not err in not according probative value to her psychological evaluation report and
testimony.

G.R. No. 191174

PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:

(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;

(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or
mortgaged;

(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of
their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the
purpose.

Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by
pledging or mortgaging their own property. In relation thereto, Article 2125 of the Civil
Code reads:

Article 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order
that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be
recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is
nevertheless binding between the parties.

G.R. No. 228877

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINADOR ESPINOSA Y PANSOY

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No.
7659, the penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Under the prevailing
circumstances, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua there being no
modifying circumstances alleged or proved. Hence, both the RTC and the CA correctly
imposed upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Pursuant to Section 3 of RA
No. 9346, appellant is not eligible for parole.

G.R. No. 229326

ROMINA N. BISMONTE, JENNIFER P. DACILLO, ERWIN C. FORMENTOS, JOHNNY
M. NARZOLES, LANIE L. LATOMBO, ENRIQUE C. HERNANDEZ, NELSON G.
BISMONTE, AND MICHAEL S. VILLANUEVA v. GOLDEN SUNSET RESORT AND
SPA AND RICARDO "RICKY" REYES
Rule 13 thereof, shall apply in a suppletory manner, pursuant to Section 3, Rule I of the
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. In this regard, Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court
reads:

Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable, the service
and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to
papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a
written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this
Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

There is a preference of personal filing and/or service over other modes as it expedites
action or resolution on a pleading, motion, or other paper, and conversely, minimizes, if
not eliminates, delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail. This
notwithstanding, case law instructs that the rule is not so rigid so as to exclude any
exception from its application, and that the only condition for the exception to apply is that
the pleading served or filed should be accompanied by a written explanation as to why
personal service was not practicable. "Thus, personal service is the general rule, and
resort to other modes of service is the exception, so that where personal service is
practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place, and person, personal service
is mandatory. Only when personal service is not practicable may resort to other modes
be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal
service or filing was not practicable to begin with." "At this stage, the judge exercises
proper discretion but only upon the explanation given. In adjudging the plausibility of an
explanation, the court shall consider not only the circumstances, the time and the place
but also the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein,
and the prima facie merit of the pleading involved."

G.R. No. 202836

FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., PETITIONER v. PHILIPPINE
BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS
To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject matter is capable or
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or relief sought must
be ascertained. If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property,
then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought
is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of
money or real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
GR No. 192048
DOUGLAS F. ANAMA v. CITIBANK
In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained.
If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the amount of the claim.
But, where the primary issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, such are actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence
cognizable by the RTCs.
G.R. No. 234448
PRIVATE HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (PHAPI)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. RUSTICO JIMENEZ, PETITIONER v. HON.
SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
On grounds of denial of substantive due process, repugnancy to the constitutional
presumption of innocence, violation of the equal protection and involuntary servitude
clauses, petitioner Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc., (PHAPi) - an
organization of privately-owned clinics, hospitals, and other health facilities - seeks to
declare as unconstitutional and void the duty imposed upon hospitals, medical
practitioners and employees to prevent actual death or injury under Section 1; the penal
provisions under Section 4; the presumption of liability clause under Section 5; and the
reimbursement and tax deduction clause under Sections 7 and 8, all of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 10932 otherwise known as an Act Strengthening the Anti-Hospital Deposit
Law.
A.C. No. 7088
ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR. v. ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN
Lawyers are licensed officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and
defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by
law as a consequence. Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations.
Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly. To this end, Canon 8 of the CPR commands, to wit:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

A.C. No. 10498

JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO
Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the
irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should
act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity
of the legal profession.
A.C. No. 12084
HERNANIE P. DANDOY v. ATTY. ROLAND G. EDAYAN
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with
public interest. Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by
law, entitled to full faith and credence. As such, a notary public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. In this light, the Court has
ruled that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly,
they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.