Jurisprudence PH

The employees should not be expected to prove the negative fact that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment and tools to engage in job-contracting.**

* Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Hingpit, 356 Phil. 90, 103 (1998); Guarin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86010, October 3, 1989.

** Guarin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86010, October 3, 1989.

Affidavits, usually taken ex parte, are almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate. ** Besides, confessio facta in judicioomni probatkone major est - - a confession made in Court is more important than all proof.

* Peoplev. Travero, 342 Phil. 263; People v. Laray, 253 SCRA 654

**People v. Salazar, 342 Phil. 745; Peopld v. Castro, 342 Phil. 540.

We usually brush aside these inconsistencies since they are trivial and do not impair the credibility of the rape victim.**

*People v. Manigo, 725 Phil. 324, 333 (2014) citing People v. Villanueva, Jr., 611 Phil. 152, 172 (2009).

**People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243, 254 (2013), People v. Laurino, 698 Phil. 195, 201 (2012); People v. Villamar, G.R. No. 202187, 10 February2016, 783 SCRA 697, 707.

Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.**

* Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007

** Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).

 The saving instance is said to be when a fact or circumstance of weight and influence has been overlooked, or its significance misconstrued by the trial court sufficient to harbor serious misgivings on its conclusions.

We have held that people react differently to a situation. The innate differences in man make each one unique by himself. Man's actions and reactions cannot be stereotyped.

The most natural reaction of victims of criminal violence during its perpetration would be to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants, ** and to estimate what, could be their next move either as an instinctive reaction or as a measure to help fend against any further attack.

*People v. Jara, 227 SCRA 669; People v. Cruz, 133 SCRA 426; People v. Alvarez, 168 SCRA 730.

** People v. Avillano, 269 SCRA 553.

The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.**

* Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 43, 452 (2013).

** Ong v. Court of Appeals, 482 Phil. 170, 177 (2004).

This is so because notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not notice in law.* Receipt of noticr by the counsel of record is the reckoning point of the reglementary period. **

*Ramos v. Sps. Lim, 397 Phil. 560, 564-565 (2005).

**See Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., 552 Phil. 226, 233 (2007), citing Ram's Studio and Photographic Equipment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 542, 549 (2000).

On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in saying that assistance of counsel is not indispensable in administrative proceedings.

The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the present of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect I'd accused during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry.

In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. H, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and this effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.*

*Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001.

-- Lapid v. Laurea, G.R. No. 139607, October 28, 2002

To warrant the issuance thereof, the abuse of discretion must have been so gross or grave, as when there was such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power was done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. The abuse must have been committed in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.**

* Angeles v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, March 12, 2012.

** Roquero v. The Chancellor of UP Manila, G.R. No. 181851, March 9, 2010.