J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 10, 2022 and the Resolution
dated December 12, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 167930
are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that Dave B. Maningo,
Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R. Maiie, Mike G.
Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez are declared illegally dismissed
from employment and entitled to the following reliefs:

1. Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, if the project
   is still ongoing. Otherwise, they should be paid separation pay
   equivalent to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
   Project Employment Contract;
2. Backwages reckoned from the dismissal ofDave B. Maningo,
   Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R.
   Marte, Mike G. Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez on
   February 20, 2019 until their reinstatement or completion of
   the structural works of the project for which they were hired;
3. Holiday and service incentive leave pay as computed by the
   Labor Arbiter;
4. l!Ioral and exemplary damages m the amount of PHP
   25,000.00 each; and
5. Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary
   awards.
   Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on the total
   monetary award from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
   The case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the
   recomputation of the total monetary benefits due to Dave B. Maningo, Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R. Marte, Mike G. Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez.
   SO ORDERED.
   

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

The accommodation letters were signed by Coo gee’s Human Resource
Assistant and the bearer/worker named in the letter. Of the four letters, two
were dated February 6, 2019, one was dated February 8, 2019, and one was
dated February 20, 2019 – the same date that Maningo et al.’s employment
was terminated due to the alleged completion of the structural works of the Project Mall. This fourth letter provided that the worker named therein shall start as helper on February 22, 2019. Coogee did not explain why it is still hiring after the supposed date of completion of the structural works of the Project Mall.

Even if the Court disregards the accommodation letters, the outcome is
the same. As stated earlier, the PECs of Maningo et al. did not state that they
were only hired for the structural works for Lot 1 Phase 1 of the Project Mall.
Hence, Maningo et al. are deemed engaged for the entire structural works.
Coo gee miserably failed to prove by substantial evidence that Maningo et al.’ s employment was terminated due to the completion of the undertaking for which they were hired.

…………………………………………

The Court finds that the CA correctly ordered (1) the reinstatement of
Maningo et al. without loss of seniority rights to their former positions, if the
project is still ongoing, and (2) the payment of backwages to Maningo et al.
reckoned from February 20, 2019 until their reinstatement or completion of
the structural works of the Project Mall.

Nevertheless, the CA’s award of separation pay if reinstatement is no
longer feasible should be modified. Per Section 3.3(b) of DO No. 19, when
reinstatement is no longer possible, the employee is entitled to his/her salaries
for the unexpired portion of the agreement; not from the time of hiring until
completion of the project as granted by the CA. Applied here, Maningo et al.
should be paid their salaries for the unexpired portion of their PECs. The PECs
are coterminous with the end or completion of the structural works of the
Project Mall, which Coo gee may prove upon remand of the case to the LA.

Meanwhile, the Court grants Maningo et al.’ s prayer for moral and
exemplary damages. In Buenaffor v. Stolt-Nielsen Philippines, Inc., 54 the
Court recounted that in a catena of cases, moral and exemplary damages have
been awarded to illegally dismissed employees once it has been shown, or the
courts have found, that their dismissal or the acts of the employer relative to
the dismissal are tainted with bad faith or fraud or where it constituted an act
oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs,
or public policy or effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
The amount of moral and exemplary damages is determined by the Court
according to the circumstances of each case. 55

In this case, the Court finds that Coo gee’s dismissal of Maningo et al.
shows a calculated act of bad faith. As astutely pointed out by Associate
Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, while Coogee dismissed Maningo et al.
under the guise of project completion, its own Human Resources department
was simultaneously trying to hire their replacements. . . . . . . . . . .

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE?

THE ISSUE IS: WHETHER CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY ARE STOCKHOLDERS OF LC LOPEZ AND CONQUEROR?

WHAT IS THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION?

THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOK. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE TRANSFER OF SHARES HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOK THAT A CORPORATION MAY RIGHTFULLY REGARD THE TRANSFEREE AS ONE OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR SUCH RULE?

THE CORPORATION CODE PROVIDES THAT “NO TRANSFER OF SHARES SHALL BE VAID EXCEPT AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNTIL THE TRANSFER IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION, THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER, THE NUMBER OF THE CERTIFICATE OR CERTIFICATES AND THE NUMBER OF SHARES  TRANSFERRED.”

DOES THE RULE ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS?

YES LIKE IN SITUATIONS WHERE PAROL EVIDENCE MAY BE USED TO SUPPLY ADMISSIONS, EXPLAIN AMBIGUITIES OR TO IMPUGN THE CORPORATE RECORDS.

BUT DOES THE EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO THIS CASE?

NO. THE GENERAL RULE REMAINS APPLICABLE.

BUT THE GIS OF BOTH LC LOPEZ AND CONQUEROR INDICATE THAT CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY ARE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE RESPECTIVE CORPORATIONS. IS THIS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DECLARE THEM AS STOCKHOLDERS?

NO. THEIR NAMES MUST APPEAR AS STOCKHOLDERS IN THE STOCK AND TRANFER BOOK. MERE INCLUSION AS SHAREHOLDER IN THE GIS IS  BY ITSELF INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT SUCH PERSON IS A SHAREHOLDER. BETWEEN THE STOCKHOLDER AND TRANSFER BOOK AND THE GIS THE FORMER IS CONTROLLING.

THE TESTIMONIES OF LOLITO, BENEDICTO L. VILLAFUERTE AND TERESITA FERNANDO CONFIRMED THAT CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY ARE STOCKHOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE GIS. ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THEIR BEING STOCKHOLDERS?

NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE STOCKHOLDERS AND TO SUCCESSFULLY CONTRADICT THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOKS. THIS IS BASED ON JURISPRUDENCE.

WHAT OTHER DOCUMENT MAY BE PRESENTED TO PROVE THAT ONE IS A STOCKHOLDER?

IN THE CASE OF LAO VS LAO A CERTIFICATE OF STOCK IS THE EVIDENCE OF A HOLDER’S INTEREST AND STATUS IN A CORPORATION.

WHAT IS A CERTIFICATE OF STOCK?

IT IS A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE PROPER OFFICER OF A CORPORATION STATING OR ACKNOWLEDING THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE DOCUMENT IS THE OWNER OF A DESIGNATED NUMBER OF SHARES OF ITS STOCK. IT IS A PRIME FACIE EVIDENCE  THAT THE HOLDER IS A SHAREHOLDER OF A CORPORATION.

WHAT ELSE DID THE COURT OBSERVED IN THIS LAO VS LAO CASE?

THE COURT NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN DOCUMENT PROVING SALE OR TRANSFER OF SHARES.

IF THERE ARE NO CERTIFICATE OF SHARE IN ONE’S NAME OR ANY DOCUMENT EVIDENCING TRANSFER OF SHARES WHAT OTHER PROOF IS SUFFICIENT.

ABSENT A WRITTEN DOCUMENT ONE MUST PROVE AT THE VERY LEAST POSSESSION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF STOCK OF THE TRANSFERROR.

WHAT DID THE COURT OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY?

THAT THEY ALSO DO NOT HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION ANY CERTIFICATES OF STOCK NOR HAVE THEY ANY DOCUMENT TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF SHARES AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO ALLEGATIONS OR EXPLANATIONS OF HOW THEY COME TO OWN THE SHARES.

WHAT ELSE DID THE COURT OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY?

THAT THERE ARE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS LISTED IN THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOK HOLDING THE SHARES OF CHRISTINA AND JOHN RUSTY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

SC CASE 2025-0013-WILFREDO C. WIJANGCO, REPRESENTED BY HIS SON, ANDREW C. WIJANCO VS. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. NO. 257086, 23 APRIL 2025, INTING, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: WIJANGCO VS GENERAL INSURANCE)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

………………………………………………

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay
GUILTY of violating Canon II, Sections 2, 4 and 23 and Canon III, Section 7
of A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, or the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability. From the foregoing and considering the presence of two
aggravating circumstances, i.e. previous administrative liability and lack of
remorse, he is hereby meted out the following penalties for each offense:

(a) For willful and deliberate forum shopping in violation of Canon
II, Section 23, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one year; •

(b) For abuse of court processes in filing frivolous motions for
inhibition, in violation of Canon III, Section 7, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay is
hereby FINED PHP 35,000.00; and

(c) For violation of Canon II, Sections 2 and 4, Atty. Makilito B.
Mahinay is hereby FINED PHPl00,000.00.

Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offenses in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

He is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to the Court that his
suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies
where he has entered his appearance as counsel.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay,
as an attorney-at-law; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office
of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the
country for their guidance and information.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

It has not escaped the attention of the Court that Mahinay filed for
inhibition when he failed to obtain favorable judgments. Upon receiving an
unfavorable resolution from Judge Forrosuelo in her Order dated May 25,
2016, Mahinay filed a Manifestation with Motion for Inhibition dated June 9,
2016.36 As a result, Judge Forrosuelo voluntarily inhibited herself from the
proceedings.37 Similarly, when Judge Andrino ruled in accord with the findings
of the Office of the City Prosecutor that “there exists no prejudicial question
that would warrant the suspension of the proceedings,”38 Mahinay prayed for
his inhibition in his Opposition to Motion for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
with Prayer for Inhibition dated March 18, 2014.39 Judge Andrino also
voluntarily recused himself from the case.40

If a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy is not to file
for the judge’s inhibition. A party cannot intimidate judges or strongly suggest
their inhibition in order to get a favorable outcome. The parties and their
lawyers cannot simply impute bias or partiality to a judge whenever they
receive an unfavorable judgment for to do so is to disrespect the judicial officer
and the judicial system as a whole.

……………………………………………………………..

The language of a lawyer must be respectful and restrained to preserve
the dignity of the legal profession.53 Mahinay’s statements imputing a crime
against his fellow lawyers manifestly falls short of this criterion. Despite the
seriousness of his accusations, he chose to voice the same in a wrong forum.
His lack of remorse is also apparent in how he reiterates that his accusations are
justified.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTLY
GRANTED. The Decision dated September 8, 2020, issued by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 111303, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that the Petition for Enforcement of a Foreign
Decree of Divorce and Correction of Record in the Civil Registry
filed before Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, docketed as
R-QZN-17-01806-CV, is ordered REINSTATED.

In the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case
is hereby REFERRED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action,
including the reception of evidence to DETERMINE and RESOLVE the
pertinent factual issues in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Given the circumstances, the Court applies established rulings 169 allowing the relaxation of rules of procedure in the higher interest of substantial justice and remands the case to the CA for reception of
evidence on the personal law of Anido’s alien spouse, Enrique. Remand is proper, considering (1) that Anido has provided a duly attested copy of the
Divorce Certificate together with the certificate by a proper consular officer of the Philippines, in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and
25 of the Rules of Court; 170 (2) the fact that a decree of absolute divorce was rendered by the Kentucky Court is not in issue nor is it being assailed
by the OSG; 171 (3) that affirming the dismissal of the present case would require Anido to refile the same pleading and present anew her evidence
on the divorce decree, which will only cause further delay and waste the resources not only of Anido but also of the courts; 172 and ( 4) that with
the divorce decree being established, justice dictates that Anido be given the opportunity to properly prove the appropriate foreign law so that she
may be freed from a marriage where she is the only remaining party. 173

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the consolidated pet1t10ns are DENIED. The
Decision dated May 31, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
06149-MIN is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the award of
attorney’s fees is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Moreover, there is no merit in the argument of the Heirs of Aquilino
Ramos in G.R. No. 271934 that they acquired ownership of the subject
property by prescription.

“Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership through the lapse of
time and under certain conditions.”25 It may either be ordinary or
extraordinary.26 “Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of
things in good faith and with just title for a period of ten years, while
extraordinary acqms1tive prescription requires uninterrupted adverse
possession of thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.”27 As
correctly observed by the CA:

In the case at bar, ordinary acquisitive prescription is unavailing as it
demands that the possession be “in good faith and with just title,” and there
is no evidence on record to prove [the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos’] “good
faith.”

Likewise, [the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos’] adverse possession of the
land fell short of the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive prescription
to set in. The records show that the subject land is an unregistered land.
When the [Heirs of Aquilino Ramos] filed the instant case on April 15,
2004, [they] were in possession of the land for only 26 years counted from
the time of the alleged start of their possession in 1978. Obviously, it fell
short of the required 30 years of uninterrupted adverse possession without
just title and good faith. 28 (Citations omitted)
22

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDlNGLY, the Comt resolves to:

1. GRANT the Petition of Slimmers .Vorld International and Dinah
   Ouinto in G.R. No. 206321;
2. REVERSE the Decision dated October 8, 2012 and Resolution
   dated March 12, 2013 of ihe Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
   96344;
3. DENY the Petition of Miguel Kim in G.R. No. 206306; and
4. DISMISS the Complaint of Miguel Kim for recoveiy of damages
   for the death of his wife, Adelaida Kim, for lack of merit.
   SO ORDERED.
   

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Gerson 0. Galan
GUILTY of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service. He is hereby ordered to PAY a FINE of PHP 150,000.00, with
FORFEITUR:E of his retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave
credits. Likewise, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reemployment
in any government agency or instrumentality, including any
government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial
institution.

This Decision shall take effect immediately upon respondent Gerson 0.
Galan’s receipt of a copy of the same. Respondent Gerson 0. Galan shall
inform this Court in writing of the date he received a copy of this Decision.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Court
Administrator for attachment to the respondent Gerson 0. Galan’s official
records.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

……………..

GALAN IS ALREADY NOT CONNECTED WITH THE COURT. WHAT PENALTY IS APPROPRIATE?

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

 DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

1. The March 14, 2019 Resolution of Branch 256, Regional Trial Court,
   Muntinlupa City in Spec. Proc. No. 18-371 is NULLIFIED and SET
   ASIDE for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
   lack or in excess of jurisdiction, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 179-
   2018;
2. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court in the
   Resolution dated January 8, 2020 is DECLARED as permanent
   effective immediately. The Honorable Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz,
   Acting Presiding Judge, her successor in Branch 256, Regional Trial
   Court, Muntinlupa City, representatives, agents, and all other persons
   acting on her behalf are PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED from
   implementing and enforcing the Resolution dated March 14, 2019 of
   Branch 256, Regional Trial Court, Muntirilupa City ih Spec. Proc. No.
   18-371;
3. The Decision dated September 3, 2007 of Branch 48, Regional Trial
   Court, Urdaneta City in Criminal Cases Nos. U-11223, U-11226, and
   U-11227 is.REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa
   City for the. determination of: (1) the proper penalty/penalties in
   accordance with Republic Act No. 10951; and (2) whe):her respondent
   ANTHONY ARCHANGEL y SY is entitled to be immediately
   released on account of full service of his sentences, as modified.
   

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

In the case of Abalos,7 9 this Court found that the retroactive application of
Republic Act No. 10951 prejudiced the accused. Thus, the penalty under the
RPC prevailed because it was beneficial to the accused.

Applying th<;: applicable law and jurisprudence, We find that Section 85 of
Republic Act No. 10951 is not favorable to respondent Sy. As correctly pointed
out by the OSG, the new penalty under Republic Act No. 10951 has the effect
of unduly raising the penalty for two counts of Estafa and aggravating the
same. 80 Instead, the original penalty imposed by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta
City, which is eight years maximum for each of Criminal Case Nos. U-11223
and U-11226, should be maintained.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC HELPER

PETITIONER WAS A DOMESTIC HELPER

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The November 23, 2012 and April 23, 2013 Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115794, insofar as it ordered petitioner
Jose Leni Z. Solidum to refund respqndent Smart Communications, Inc. the
additional wages and benefits he received by virtue of the 10th Alias Writ of
Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. NCR-00-11-09564-
05, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SMART FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER AS MANDATED BY ARBITER’S DECISION. BUT SMART PAID HIM SALARIES TOTALLING P15,889,871,04. HOWEVER NLRC REVERSED THE DECISION. SMART IS NOW ASKING THE RETURN OF THE P15,889,871.04. SUPREME COURT SAID SMART CANNOT DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT. IT FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER. UNTIL THE DECISION WAS REVERSED WITH FINALITY PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SAID SALARIES.

All told, the CA misapplied the Two-Fold Test resulting in the erroneous
order for Solidum to reimburse PHP 15,889.871.04 to Smart. The appellate
court incorrectly attributed Solidum ‘s alleged delay in filing his claim for
additional salaries and benefits as a reason for its order of reimbursement in
favor of Smart. However, as explained earlier, the term “delay” in the TwoF
old Test context is directly linked to the employer who has refused to comply
with the labor arbiter’s reinstatement order before its reversal. Importantly,
any perceived delay on Solidum’s part in seeking the computation and
payment of his accumulated wages and benefits is considered inconsequential
due to the immediate and self-executory nature of the labor arbiter’s decision.

Given the facts and circumstances, the delay in this case can be traced
back to the unjustified actions of Smart. It is crucial to reiterate that Article
223, paragraph 3, of the Labor Code mandates the employer to promptly
reinstate the dismissed employee, either by actual reinstatement under the
conditions prevailing before the dismissal, or through his or her inclusion in
the payroll. Smart’s failure to exercise either option in a timely manner makes
it accountable for Solidum’s accrued salaries and benefits until the arbiter’s
decision was overturned by the NLRC. Notably, since the NLRC’s May 29,
2009 Decision attained finality on August 10, 2009, Solidum is entitled to the
PHP 15,889,871.04 claimed under the 10th Alias Writ, representing his
accrued earnings from before August l 0, 2009, covering the period from July
13, 2006, to January 26, 2009.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
232968 and G.R. No. 232974, are DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.

On the other hand, the Petition for Certiorari filed by Arthur Cua Yap
in G.R. Nos. 238584-87 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated
November 28, 2017 and March 1, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) in SB-
17-CRM-1510-1545 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Yap’s Motion for
Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 15 August 201 7) with Motion
to Quash Informations is GRANTED and the cases against him before the
Sandiganbayan, docketed as SB-l 7-CRM-1526, SB-17-CRM-1527, SB-l 7-
CRM-1531, and SB-l 7-CRM-1544, are hereby DISMISSED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Corollary thereto, it is doctrinal that the burden of proof to justify the
delay shifts depending on when the right was invoked. The defense bears the
burden if the right was invoked within the periods prescribed by this Comi,
the Rules of Court, or the 0MB for the conduct of preliminary investigation;
the prosecution bears the burden if the right was invoked beyond the set
periods, and it must show that the delay was justifiable under the factors
provided in Cagang.66 In other words, if the O1\1B exceeded the prescribed
period, the burden of proof shifts to the state.67 Catamco v. Sandiganbayan68
instructs that once the burden of proof shifts to prosecution, the prosecution
must prove that: 1) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of
preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case, 2) the complexity
of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable, and 3) no
prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.69

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
January 7, 2021 of the Cou11 of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39899
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. is
ACQUITTED of the crime ofEstafa in Criminal Case No. Q-07-148522
as his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Branch 216,
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City is ORDERED to CANCEL the cash
bail bond and return the same to petitioner.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER ONLY ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY, AIRWARD. HE WAS JUST A MERE EMPLOYEE.. THUS, WHEN HE RECEIVED FROM THE COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF PHP 37,400.00,
PETITIONER CANNOT BE FAULTED WHEN PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TRIP TO HONG KONG,
WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY BOOKED IN AIRWARD, DID NOT MATERIALIZE.

From Arevalo’s testimony, it can be concluded that Airward’s
promotional tour packages through the book and buy arrangement
with an IATA-member travel agency is an accepted practice among
travel agencies.

The RTC likewise erred when it failed to appreciate petitioner’s
defense that he was a mere employee of Airward. 52 The fact that petitioner
was indeed an employee of Airward was confirmed by Fernando, who was
a bookkeeper in Airward from 2004 to 2007. 53 Also, from the records,
Fernando was presented in court to prove that Airward is a legitimate
business entity owned by Melinda Estanislao. 54

Considering the foregoing, petitioner can be said to have only acted
for and on behalf of Airward when he transacted with private complainant
and when he received from the latter the amount of PHP 37,400.00. Thus,
petitioner cannot be faulted when private complainant’s trip to Hong Kong,
which was originally booked in Airward, did not materialize.

Likewise, petitioner’s attempt to reimburse private complainant
through his personal check cannot be taken against him . This fact is not
enough in establishing the guilt of petitioner for the crime of Estafa.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THIS CASE TACKLES MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. WE TACKLE THESE ISSUES ONE BY ONE.

LABOR CONTRACTING PER SE IS NOT ILLEGAL.

HOW TO PROVE SEASONAL OR FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT.

WORKERS ENGAGED IN INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES OF PLDT LINES NEED TO BE REGULARIZED.

ON PROJECT EMPLOYMENT. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS A CHECK?

…………………………………………………….

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RIVERA HAS A CURRENT ACCOUNT. SHE OPENED A SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHICH SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER MONEY TO HER CURRENT ACCOUNT. A CHECK ISSUED BY LK FISHING WAS PRESENTED FOR DEPOSIT AT THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT. PBCOM DEPOSITED IT. BUT WHEN IT RECEIVED A STOP PAYMENT ORDER FROM LK FISHING IT REVERTED BACK THE DEPOSITED AMOUNT IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT. THUS WHEN RIVER’S CHECK WAS PRESENTED TO HER CURRENT ACCOUNT THE CHECK WAS DISHONORED BECAUSE THE FUND IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHICH AUTOMATICALLY WOULD FUND THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WAS ALREADY REVERTED BACK TO THE ACCOUNT OF LK FISHING. RIVERA’S CHECK BOUNCED. COURT SAID BOTH LK FISHING AND PBCOM ARE JOINTLY LIABLE..

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NOTE: THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ARMED. MIGHT BE PROPER TO REVISIT THE DECISION.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. James Bryan 0.
Agustin GUILTY of the offense of Unjustifiable Failure or Refusal to
Render an Accounting of the Funds or Properties of a Client under Section
34(n), Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of fifteen (15) days, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

The suspension from the practice of law shall take effect
immediately upon Atty. James Bryan 0. Agustin’s receipt of this
Decision. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the
Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasijudicial
bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the

Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

Jurisprudence dictates that save for one’s retaining lien, lawyers
generally should not withhold the client’s funds and/or documents.19 For
a proper exercise of one’s retaining lien, the lawyer must establish the
following elements: “(l) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession
of the client’s funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for
attorney’s fees. “20

After a careful review, the Court finds respondent’s exercise of his
retaining lien by withholding the return of complainant’s passport to be
‘improper in the case.

………………………………………………….

On this point, it is likewi9e interesting to note respondent’s
confusing statements: first, that cornplainant’s AEP and visa applications
were never processed due to the lack of funds for the tasks; and second,
that neither complainant nor the Ji\gency paid his legal fees for the
processing of _the applica~i?ns in th~ amount _of PHP 15,000.00. Indeed, if
respondent did not fac1htate the ! processmg of the AEP and visa
applications, then why is he demanding legal fees from complainant
and/or the Agency for it?

………………………………………………

In the case, the Court deems it proper to suspend respondent from
the practice of law for a period of only fifteen ( 15) days in view of the
following mitigating circumstances: (a) absence of bad faith or malice;
and (b) expression of remorse, considering that he already tun1ed over the
passport to the Jordanian Honorary Consulate General.

In closing, lawyers are reminded to avoid any controversy with a
client concerning fees for legal services and to resort to judicial action
solely to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud. 27 In case of non-payment
of attorney’s fees, a lawyer may resort to the proper enforcement of the
attorney’s lien under Section 54, Canon III of the CPRA by filing a notice
of enforcement of attorney’s lien with the court, tribunal, or other
government agency of origin where the action or proceeding the lawyer
rendered service for is pending, without prejudice to other remedies under
the law or the Rules of Court.28

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

IN THE THIRD CRIMINAL CASE THE CRIME WAS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED MURDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF PRESENTED TO SHOW SHOW THAT MARIDREF SUFFERED FATAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS.

IN THE INFORMATIONS TREACHERY WAS MENTIONED BUT THERE WERE NO FACTUAL AVERMENTS. HOWEVER ACCUSED FAILED TO TIMELY QUESTION SUCH DEFECT.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER WAS ACCUSED OF ROBBERY. HE WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE STOLEN THINGS. THE PRESUMPTION IS ONE WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF SUBJECT STOLEN THINGS IS THE PERPETRATOR. HE WAS NOT ABLE TO REBUT THIS PRESUMPTION.

THE THINGS STOLEN WERE RECOVERED. BUT RTC STILL AWARDED CIVIL INDEMNITY BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN THINGS. IS THIS PROPER?

NO.

……………………………………………………

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

CAUSING POSTED IN FACEBOOK A LIBELOUS STATEMENT AGAINST REPR HERNANDEZ OF SOUTH COTABATO. FISCAL RULE THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE. INFORMATION WAS FILED. CAUSING FILED MOTION TO QUASH ON GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION. SEC 4, ART 90 OF RPC PROVIDES THAT LIBEL PRESCRIBES IN ONE YEAR. RTC DENIED THE MOTION TO QUASH. HENCE THIS CASE. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT PRESCRIPTION FOR LIBEL IS ONE YEAR BASED ON SEC 4 ART 90 AND CLARIFIED THAT THE PERIOD IS COUNTED FROM DATE OF DISCOVERY NOT FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OR POSTING. SINCE DATE OF DISCOVERY IS NOT ASCERTAINED YET THERE MUST BE TRIAL SO EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED TO DETERMINE DATE OF DISCOVERY.

……………………………………………………..

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
August 14, 2019 and the Resolution dated June 17, 2020 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 111924 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY LEXUS. SPOUSES KO BOUGHT IT BUT THE DEED OF SALE WAS UNDATED AND UNNOTARIZED. THE PROPERTY WAS AUCTIONED BECAUSE OF TAX DELINQUENCY. GO BOUGHT IT. SPOUSES KO REDEEMED IT. WAS REDEMPTION VALID SINCE SPOUSES KO HAVE NOT YET TRANSFERRED THE TITLE TO THEIR NAMES AND THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT EVEN NOTARIZED.

YES. THE DEED OF SALE, WHILE NOT NOTARIZED, IS VALID. FURTHER, LAW ALWAYS FAVOR REDEMPTION.

Under the circumstances, it is clear that Spouses Ko had the right
to redeem the subject property as the owners thereof notwithstanding the
fact that the title had yet to be transferred under their own names. Thus,
the only question now is whether Spouses Ko actually exercised their right
of redemption within one year from the date of sale of the subject property.

To stress, it is undisputed that Spouses Ko, through Lynnor, paid
the redemption price as computed by the City Treasurer’s Office well
within the one-year redemption period, as evidenced by Official Receipt
No. 6566377 dated March 29, 2012.

Contrary to Go’s insistence, this constitutes as a valid exercise of
the right of redemption on the part of Spouses Ko despite their nonsubmission
of any proof of ownership or legal interest on the subject
property before the City Treasurer’s Office. To reiterate, the payment of
the redemption price in the case was actually credited to Lexus, not to
Spouses Ko, as shown by the official receipt thereon. Stated differently,
even the City Treasurer’s Office acknowledged that the redemption price
paid by Lynnor was meant specifically for the redemption of the subject
property, which, based on its records, was still owned by Lexus, the
delinquent registered owner thereof.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Spouses Ko had validly
redeemed the subject property upon payment of the full redemption price
of ?348,355.92 within the one-year redemption period provided under
Section 261 of RA 7160.

After all, it is well settled that “where the redemptioner has chosen
to exercise the right of redemption, it is the policy of the law to aid rather
than to defeat such right.”39 Moreover, as the Court emphasized in City
Mayor of Quezon City v. RCBC,40 “redemption should be looked upon
with favor and where no injury will follow, a liberal construction will be
given to our redemption laws, specifically on the exercise of the right to
redeem. “41

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated

September 24, 2020, and the Resolution dated February 16, 2022, of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153869, and the Order dated

September 18, 201 7, and the Decision dated September 18, 2017, of

Branch 62, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, in Civil Case No. 02-683

are SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, the Complaint for deficiency claim in Civil Case No.

02-683 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Indeed, the RTC is given considerable discretion in deciding

whether a case before it should be dismissed with or without prejudice. It

must be stressed, however, that the exercise of judicial discretion must not

violate Section 16, Article III of the Constitution which provides that “[a]ll

persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before

all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” Courts should decide

cases judiciously and expeditiously as a matter of course keeping in mind

the adage, “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Here, SPV-AMC, Inc. ‘s delay in prosecuting its action is

inexcusable. It is incredulous that the archival period of the case was

longer than the 10-year-prescriptive period on the enforcement of the

promissory notes. 86 Evidently, SPV-AMC and SPV-AMC, Inc. had all the

opportunity in the world to prove their deficiency claim by preponderant

evidence and still failed to do so. Having ruled on the merits of the case

and finding SPV-AMC, Inc.’s evidence insufficient to justify its deficiency

claim, the RTC should have dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.

Considering that the case had already been archived for more than

10 years, the Court rules that the RTC’s order of dismissal without

prejudice after trial on the merits is a violation of petitioners’ right to

speedy disposition of their case, and thus, cannot be sanctioned by the

Court. More, there will be no end to litigation and the courts’ dockets

would be clogged if plaintiffs who, by their own fault, failed to

substantiate their claims after trial on the merits would be allowed to

re-file their case to the prejudice of the defendant.

On a final note, “[t]he expeditious disposition of cases is as much

the duty of the plaintiff as the court’s.” 87 SPV-AMC Inc. ‘s delay in

prosecuting its action for an unreasonable length of time is highly

prejudicial to petitioners whose loan obligation continued ballooning

while the case is pending. The Court cannot, in good conscience, make

petitioners suffer for the negligence of SPV-AMC and SPV-AMC, Inc.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, HOW COMMITTED

ALIBI AS DEFENSE

APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER ADMITTED COMPLETE DELIVERIES. IT ALSO ADMITTED THE SUM BEING CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT. THE COURT CAN MOTO PROPIO DURING PRE-TRIAL ORDER THAT JUDGMENT BE RENDERED BASED ON THE PLEADINGS. NO NEED TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

ATTY MAGLALANG CAUSED THE PRODUCTION OF A FORGED ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE DRILON DECLARARING THE PRESUMPTIVE DEATH OF RUBY S. MADRINIAN. THIS WAS CONTESTED BY JUDGE DRILON. SC FOUND ATTY MAGLALANG GUILTY AND DISBARRED HIM.

…………………………………

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.