Annotation of Levy

Similarly, in Pacific Commercial Co. v. Geaga, the Court held that although the Register of Deeds may properly reject an attachment where it appears that the titles involved are not registered in the name of the defendants (debtors), that rule yields to a case where there is evidence submitted to indicate that the defendants have present or future interests in the property covered by said titles, regardless of whether they still stand in the names of other persons. The fact that the present interests of the defendants are still indeterminate, and even though there was no judicial declaration of heirship yet, is of no consequence for the purpose of registering the attachment in question. This is the case since what is being attached and what may be later sold at public auction in pursuance of the attachment cannot be anything more than whatever rights, titles, interests and participations which the defendants may or might have in the property so attached. In other words, if they had actually nothing in the property, then nothing is affected and the property will remain intact. This rule is expressed in Section 35, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Civil Procedure (Spouses Anselmo and Priscilla Bulaong Vs. Veronica Gonzales, G.R. No. 156318. September 5, 2011)

Effect of Notarization

As notarized documents, Deeds of Absolute Sale carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.

In the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966, the Notary Public signed his name as one of the two witnesses to the execution of the said deed; hence, there was actually only one witness thereto. Moreover, the residence certificate of petitioner was issued to petitioner and then it was given to the Notary Public the day after the execution of the deed of sale and notarization; hence, the number of petitioner’s residence certificate and the date of issuance (June 21, 1966) thereof was written on the Deed of Absolute Sale by the Notary Public on June 21, 1966, after the execution and notarization of the said deed on June 20, 1966. Considering the defect in the notarization, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 cannot be considered a public document, but only a private document, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence (Adelaida Meneses (deceased), substituted by her heir Marilyn M. Carbonel-Garcia Vs. Rosario G. Venturozo, G.R. No. 172196. October 19, 2011).

Liability of Employer to Seaman's Death

The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable. This rule, however, is not absolute. The employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act (Maritime Factors Inc. Vs. Bienvenido R. Hindang, G.R. No. 151993. October 19, 2011).

Penalty of Dishonesty

Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.

However, in several administrative cases, the Court refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. There were several cases, particularly involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted a penalty lower than dismissal because of the existence of mitigating circumstances (Falsification of Daily Time Records of Ma. Emcisa A. Benedictos, A.M. No. P-10-2784. October 19, 2011).

Three Readings on Separate Days

Section 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution which provides that before bills passed by either the House or the Senate can become laws, they must pass through three readings on separate days. The exception is when the President certifies to the necessity of the bill’s immediate enactment (Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271).

Anonymous Complaint

Rule II – Disciplinary Cases

SEC. 8. Complaint. - A complaint against a civil service official or employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under oath.

No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegation therein or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person complained of may be required to comment.

Burden of Proof

Even where the petitioner alleged non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the respondent to prove payment, rather than on the petitioner to prove non-payment (Keppel v. Adao, G.R. No.158227, October 19, 2005).