Latest Entries »

CASE 2020-0041: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. TEODORO ANSANO CALLEJA, y (G.R. No. 232455, DECEMBER 2, 2020, CAGUIOA, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS CALLEJA)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08223 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Teodoro Ansano y Calleja is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of New Bilibid Prisons for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE BY RTC. AFFIRMED BY CA. SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM WAS UNABLE TO PASS THE EXACTING TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY THAT THE LAW DEMANDS AND THE RULES REQUIRE TO SATISFY THE PROSECUTION’S BURDEN OF OVERCOMING APPELLANT’S PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. RAPED HAPPENED IN APRIL 2005. THE VICTIM IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED IN MARCH 2006. HER DESCRIPTION OF HIM IN 2005 VARY FROM HER DESCRIPTION IN 2006. SHE IDENTIFIED THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ACCUSED BUT ONLY ONE PHOTO WAS SHOWN. THE TEST EMPLOYED BY THE COURT WAS THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES  TEST.  SIGNIFICANT JURISPRUDENCE:

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST?

To reiterate, the totality of circumstances test requires the Court to look at the following factors in weighing the reliability of the out-of-court identification: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the length of time between the crime and the identification; ( 5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED IS DENIAL AND ALIBI. ARE THESE NOT WEAK DEFENSES?

Also, while the defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak, they are only so in the face of an effective identification64 which, as discussed, was not present in this case.

REMINDER OF THE COURT:

The Court thus takes this opportunity to remind courts that “[a] conviction for a crime rests on two bases: (I) credible and convincing testimony establishing the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime; and (2) the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime are attributable to the accused.”62 “Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution’s primary responsibility. Thus, in every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof bey~md reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.”63

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”.

4 CASES DECIDED IN 2020 FOR BAR REVIEW 

CASE 2000-0036: FELIX VS. VITRIOLO (G.R. No. 237129, 09 DEC 2020): VITRIOLO WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHED. PETITIONER, A FACULTY MEMBER OF PLM, WROTE LETTERS TO RESPONDENT REQUESTING RESPONDENT TO INVESTIGATE  ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL OPERATIONS OF PLM. RESPONDENT FAILED TO ANSWER SAID LETTERS AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION. OMBUDSMAN RULED HIS OMISSION  CONSTITUTES GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. HE WAS DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE. ON APPEAL CA RULED RESPONDENT COMMITTED ONLY SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY AND IMPOSED 30 DAYS SUSPENSION. EVIDENCE SHOWS HE REFERRED MATTER TO VARIOUS UNITS OF CHED. BUT SUPREME COURT REVERSED CA AND AFFIRMED OMBUDSMAN RULING. THE FACT IS RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROMPTLY ANSWERED PETITIONER’S LETTERS AND THE FACT THAT AFTER SO MANY YEARS THERE WAS NO RESULT OF INVESTIGATION SHOWS RESPONDENT DID NOT PERFORM HIS DUTY.  SIGNIFICANT RULING:

“Worse, in Vitriolo’s reply dated July 11, 4014 to Felix’s June 30, 2014 letter, he only gave the lame excuse that the one assigned for investigation has retired without turning over his findings. Vi riol◊ even admitted that as late as August 3, 2015, he was still making referrals for the investigation of the matter to different CHED offices. If Vitriolo truly ordered an investigation of the alleged diploma-mill operations of PLM and considering that five long years has passed since Felix first wrote the letters to Vitriolo regarding the matter, a definite finding should have already been arrived at.

What is apparent in Vitriolo’s actions is that he did not take the allegations of Felix seriously. His flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his official duties could have allowed the continuation of PLM’s illegal academic programs.

All told, Vitriolo’s failure to reply to the two letters sent by Felix is not a simple violation of Section 5 (a) ofR.A. No. 6713 but an omission that gave rise to a more serious problem of the possible continuation of the illegal programs and diploma-mill operations of PLM. Because of Vitriolo’s gross neglect of duty, the investigation was not undertaken and the possible administrative liabilities of those involved were not determined.”

CASE 2020-0037-MONTEHERMOSO VS BATUTO (G.R. NO. 246553, 02 DEC 2020). DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE RTC JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY PETITIONERS FILED SEVERAL PETITIONS IN VARIOUS FORA TO OVERTURN THE RTC JUDGMENT. THE SC DID NOT LOOK WITH FAVOR ON PETITIONERS’ ACTS AND WARNED PETITIONERS AND THEIR COUNSEL THAT ANY FURTHER ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THIS CASE IN WHATEVER FORM AND BEFORE ANY FORUM WILL BE SEVERELY SANCTIONED. SIGNIFICANT RULING:

“Spouses Aguilar v. The Manila Banking Corporation12 aptly held:

It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant’s rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply to the detriment of the administration of justice.”

CASE 2020-0038: VILLAMOR VS ATTY. JUMAO-AS (A.C. No. 8111, 09 DEC 2020) ATTY. JUMAO-AS ORGANIZED A LENDING CORPORATION FOR VILLAMOR. HE ARRANGED FOR A LOAN FOR SUCH LENDING CORP FROM A CERTAIN YU. LATER ATTY JUMAO-AS PUT UP A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP LENDING COMPANY FOR YU AND TOLD COLLECTORS OF VILLAMOR’S CORP TO TURN OVER THEIR COLLECTIONS TO YU’S COMPANY BECAUSE OF YU’S LOAN TO VILLAMOR’S CORP. THEN ATTY. JUMAO-AS SENT DEMAND LETTER TO VILLAMOR FOR PAYMENT OF HER COMPANY’S DEBT TO YU. VILLAMOR FILED ADMIN CASE AGAINST ATTY. JUMAO-AS. SC ADOPTED IBP RECOMMENDATION THAT ATTY JUMAO-AS BE SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS. HE VIOLATED THE RULE ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SIGNIFICANT RULING:

“In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest in this wise:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client………”

CASE 2020-0039:         BUENAVENTURA VS ATTY. GILLE (A.C. No. 7446, 20 DEC 2020) ATTY GILLE BORROWED MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT MICHELLE BUENAVENTURA USING FAKE TITLE AS COLLATERAL. LATER HE ISSUED CHECK AS PAYMENT WHICH BOUNCED. COMPLAINT WAS FILED AT IBP. ATTY GILLE FAILED TO FILE ANSWER AND POSITION PAPER. IBP RECOMMENDED THAT HE BE SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS. SC DISBARRED HIM. SIGNIFICANT RULINGS:

BY BORROWING MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT WHAT RULE DID ATTY GILLE VIOLATE?

“Atty. Gille violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected, to wit:

CANON 16-A LAWYER SHALL HOIJ,D IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS T AIT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.04 -A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by t e nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lefd money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance! necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

It is undisputed that Atty. Gille secured a loan from Michelle. The mere act of borrowing money from his client is confidered unethical and an abuse of the latter’s confidence reposed upon him. I In doing so, Atty. Gille took advantage of his influence over his client Mi’rhelle. 10 Further, Michelle was at a disadvantage because of respondent’s abilit~ to use all the legal maneuverings to evade his obligation. 11”

BY GIVING AS COLLATERAL A FAKE TITLE AND BY ISSUING BOUNCED CHECK WHAT RULE DID ATTY GILLE VIOLATE?

“Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” The “conduct” under the Rule does not pertain solely to a lawyer’s performance of professional duties. 15 It has long been settled that “[a] lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his or her professional or private capacity. The test is whether [a lawyer’s conduct manifests his or her wanting] in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or [unworthiness] to continue as an officer of the court.”

 

 

CASE 2020-0040: VICENTE T. GUERRERO, VS. PHIL. PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC. (G.R. No. 223178, DECEMBER 9, 2020, CARANDANG, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 23, 2015 and the Resolution dated January 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101902 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint in Civil Case No. 09-122267 is DISMISSED

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

GUERRERO’S CHEVROLET PICK-UP DRIVEN BY A CERTAIN CORDERO  COLLIDED WITH AN IZUZU SPORTIVO OWNED AND DRIVEN BY GATICALES. PHOENIX INSURANCE PAID DAMAGES TO GATICALES AND SUED GUERERO AND CORDERO. EVIDENCE OF PHONIX INSURANCE CONSISTED OF TESTIMONY OF SOLE WITNESS, ITS CLAIMS MANAGER, THE POLICE CERTIFICATE STATING AN ENTRY RECORDED IN THE POLICE BLOTTER AND PICTURES. THE BLOTTER SHOWS THAT THE CHEVROLET OVERLAPPED TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE HIGHWAY RESULTING TO THE ACCIDENT. RTC AND CA RULED THAT GUERRERO AND CORDERO ARE JOINTLY LIABLE. SC REVERSED THEIR DECISIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE POLICE CERTIFICATION AND PICTURES, THE MAIN EVIDENCES, WERE IMPROPERLY PRESENTED. THE PHOENIX CLAIMS MANAGER IS NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO TESTIFY ON THE POLICE CERTIFICATE BECAUSE HE HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT, NOR OF THE INCIDENT. THE BLOTTER ENTRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE POLICE OFFICER WHO PREPARED IT OR WHO HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT. LIKEWISE THE PICTURES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE ONE WHO TOOK THEM OR THE ONE WHO WAS AT THE SCENE SO HE CAN RELATE THE PICTURES TO THE OBJECTS WHOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN.WITH THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE POLICE CERTIFICATE AND THE PICTURES, RES IPSA LOQUITOR DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT PROVEN.

A POLICE BLOTTER IS ADMISSIBLE BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE BECAUSE IT IS AN ENTRY IN OFFICIAL RECORD. WHY WAS THIS RULE NOT APPLIED IN THIS CASE?

BECAUSE TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE SAID EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED PROPERLY. IN THIS CASE, PHOENIX INSURANCE FAILED TO PRESENT THE POLICE CERTIFICATE PROPERLY.

“The strength of Phoenix’s claim for damages mainly rests on the admissibility and probative value of the police certificate ( embodying the contents of the police blotter) and the pictures of the damaged Isuzu. The lower courts both concluded that the police blotter is an exception to the hearsay rule because it is classified as an entry in official record, following Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.40

A police blotter entry, or a certification thereof, is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In order for it to be admissible, the said evidence must be properly presented in evidence. What must have been presented in evidence was either the police blotter itself or a copy thereof certified by its legal keeper.”

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”.

CASE 123: MICHELLE A. BUENAVENTURA, VS. ATTY. DANY B. GILLE, (A.C. No. 7446, DECEMBER 20, 2020, PERCURIAM:) (SUBJECT/S: LAWYER BORROWING MONEY FROM CLIENT, GIVING FAKE TITLE AS COLLATERAL, ISSUING BOUNCED CHECK, NOT FILING ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AT IBP) (BRIEF TITLE: BUENAVENTURA VS ATTY. GILLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, Atty. Dany B. Gille is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 16.04, of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of the Lawyer’s Oath. He is thus DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Atty. Dany B. Gille is also hereby meted a FINE in the amount PS,000.00 for his disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Dany B. Gille’s records. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the (a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its Chapters; (b) all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the Philippines; and ( c) the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

ATTY GILLE BORROWED MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT MICHELLE BUENAVENTURA USING FAKE TITLE AS COLLATERAL. LATER HE ISSUED CHECK AS PAYMENT WHICH BOUNCED. COMPLAINT WAS FILED AT IBP. ATTY GILLE FAILED TO FILE ANSWER AND POSITION PAPER. IBP RECOMMENDED THAT HE BE SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS. SC DISBARRED HIM.

BY BORROWING MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT WHAT RULE DID ATTY GILLE VIOLATE?

“Atty. Gille violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from borrowing money from his clie t unless the client’s interests are fully protected, to wit:

CANON 16-A LAWYER SHALL HOIJ,D IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS T AIT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.04 -A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by t e nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lefd money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance! necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

It is undisputed that Atty. Gille secured a loan from Michelle. The mere act of borrowing money from his client is confidered unethical and an abuse of the latter’s confidence reposed upon him. I In doing so, Atty. Gille took advantage of his influence over his client Mi’rhelle. 10 Further, Michelle was at a disadvantage because of respondent’s abilit~ to use all the legal maneuverings to evade his obligation. 11”

BY GIVING AS COLLATERAL A FAKE TITLE AND BY ISSUING BOUNCED CHECK WHAT RULE DID ATTY GILLE VIOLATE?

“Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” The “conduct” under the Rule does not pertain solely to a lawyer’s performance of professional duties. 15 It has long been settled that “[a] lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his or her professional or private capacity. The test is whether [a lawyer’s conduct manifests his or her wanting] in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or [unworthiness] to continue as an officer of the court.”

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”.

CASE 2020-0038: ADELITA S. VILLAMOR, VS. ATTY. ELY GALLAND A. JUMAO-AS, (A.C. No. 8111, DECEMBER 9, 2020, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: CONFLICT OF INTEREST) (BRIEF TITLE: VILLAMOR VS ATTY. JUMAO-AS)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as GUILTY of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judical 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. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as 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:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

ATTY. JUMAO-AS ORGANIZED A LENDING CORPORATION FOR VILLAMOR. HE ARRANGED FOR A LOAN FOR SUCH LENDING CORP FROM A CERTAIN YU. LATER ATTY JUMAO-AS PUT UP A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP LENDING COMPANY FOR YU AND TOLD COLLECTORS OF VILLAMOR’S CORP TO TURN OVER THEIR COLLECTIONS TO YU’S COMPANY BECAUSE OF YU’S LOAN TO VILLAMOR’S CORP. THEN ATTY. JUMAO-AS SENT DEMAND LETTER TO VILLAMOR FOR PAYMENT OF HER COMPANY’S DENT TO YU. VILLAMOR FILED ADMIN CASE AGAINST ATTY. JUMAO-AS. SC ADOPTED IBP RECOMMENDATION THAT ATTY JUMAO-AS BE SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS.

WHEN IS THERE CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

“In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest in this wise:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.”  

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”.

CASE 2020-0037: MARILYN B. MONTEHERMOSO, TANNY B. MONTEHERMOSO, EMMA B. MONTEHERMOSO OLIVEROS, EVA B. MONTEHERMOSO, TERESA B. MONTEHERMOSO CARIG, and SALVAR B. MONTEHERMOSO VS. ROMEO BATUTO AND ARNEL BATUTO (G.R. NO. 246553, DECEMBER 2, 2020, LAZARO-JAVIER, J.) (SUBJECT/S: FINALITY OF JUDGMENT; LITIGATION MUST END)(BRIEF TITLE: MONTEHERMOSO ET AL VS BATUTO ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the assailed Resolutions dated February 13, 2019 and April 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 159373, AFFIRMED.

Petitioners as well as their counsel Atty. Belinda M. Nagui or any other counsel who may take over this case are STERNLY WARNED that any further attempt to revive this case in whatever form and before any forum will be severely sanctioned.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE RTC JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY PETITIONERS FILED SEVERAL PETITIONS IN VARIOUS FORA TO OVERTURN THE RTC JUDGMENT. THE SC DID NOT LOOK WITH FAVOR ON PETITIONERS’ ACTS AND WARNED PETITIONERS AND THEIR COUNSEL THAT ANY FURTHER ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THIS CASE IN WHATEVER FORM AND BEFORE ANY FORUM WILL BE SEVERELY SANCTIONED.

JURISPRUDENCE CITED BY THE COURT:

“Spouses Aguilar v. The Manila Banking Corporation12 aptly held:

It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant’s rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply to the detriment of the administration of justice.

The Court reminds petitioners’ counsel of the duty of lawyers who, as officers of the court, must see to it that the orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrove1tible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

There should be a greater awareness on the part of litigants and counsels that the time of the judiciary, much more so of this Court, is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by effo1ts, far from commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and executory, especially so, where, as shown in the present case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is quite obvious and indisputable.

Verily, by the undue delay in the execution of a final judgment in their favor, respondents have suffered an injustice. The Court views with disfavor the unjustified delay in the enforcement of the final decision and orders in the present case. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing paiiy should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing paity. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality.”

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-2020-0036: OLIVER B. FELIX, VS. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, (G.R. No. 237129, DECEMBER 9, 2020, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: FELIX VS VITRIOLO)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 1 7, 2017 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149063 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court finds respondent Julito D. Vitriolo GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and imposes upon him the penalty of DISMISSAL from service, with the corresponding accessory penalties.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENT WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHED. PETITIONER, A FACULTY MEMBER OF PLM, WROTE LETTERS TO RESPONDENT REQUESTING RESPONDENT TO INVESTIGATE  ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL OPERATIONS OF PLM. RESPONDENT FAILED TO ANSWER SAID LETTERS AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION. OMBUDSMAN RULED HIS OMISSION  CONSTITUTES GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. HE WAS DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE. ON APPEAL CA RULED RESPONDENT COMMITTED ONLY SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY AND IMPOSED 30 DAYS SUSPENSION. EVIDENCE SHOWS HE REFERRED MATTER TO VARIOUS UNITS OF CHED. BUT SUPREME COURT REVERSED CA AND AFFIRMED OMBUDSMAN RULING. THE FACT IS RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROMPTLY ANSWERED PETITIONER’S LETTERS AND THE FACT THAT AFTER SO MANY YEARS THERE WAS NO RESULT OF INVESTIGATION SHOWS RESPONDENT DID NOT PERFORM HIS DUTY.  SOME SIGNIFICANT FACTS ARE STATED BELOW:

“Worse, in Vitriolo’s reply dated July 11, 4014 to Felix’s June 30, 2014 letter, he only gave the lame excuse that the one assigned for investigation has retired without turning over his findings. Vi riol◊ even admitted that as late as August 3, 2015, he was still making referrals for the investigation of the matter to different CHED offices. If Vitriolo truly ordered an investigation of the alleged diploma-mill operations of PLM and considering that five long years has passed since Felix first wrote the letters to Vitriolo regarding the matter, a definite finding should have already been arrived at.

What is apparent in Vitriolo’s actions is that he did not take the allegations of Felix seriously. His flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his official duties could have allowed the continuation of PLM’s illegal academic programs.

All told, Vitriolo’s failure to reply to the two letters sent by Felix is not a simple violation of Section 5 (a) ofR.A. No. 6713 but an omission that gave rise to a more serious problem of the possible continuation of the illegal programs and diploma-mill operations of PLM. Because of Vitriolo’s gross neglect of duty, the investigation was not undertaken and the possible administrative liabilities of those involved were not determined.”

WHAT IS GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY?

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 43

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”.

CASE 2020-0035: MARTIN N. LIM, JR., VS. MARIA CONCEPCION D. LINDAG (G.R. No. 234405, DECEMBER 9, 2020, PERALTA, C. J.) (SUBJECT/S: ESTAFA THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION; MORAL DAMAGES; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; CIVIL LIABILITY IN CASE OF ACQUITTAL) (BRIEF TITLE: LIM VS LINDAG)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 18, 2017 Decision and the September 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104923 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, petitioner Martin N. Lim, Jr. is ORDERED to PAY the amount of Pl,300,000.00 as actual damages subject to six percent (6%) per annum interest rate from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid. The award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are DELETED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENT BOUGHT CONDO FROM SAN JOSE BUILDERS. PETITIONER WAS SALES AGENT OF SELLER. RESPONDENT ISSUED TWO CROSSED  CHECKS TO PETITIONER. ONE CHECK AS PAYMENT AND ANOTHER FOR EXPENSES TO TRANSFER TITLE. RESPONDENT DISCOVERED PAYMENT CHECK WAS ENCASHED BUT NOT BY SAN JOSE BUILDERS. PETITIONER SAID HE WAS ROBBED AND CHECKS WERE TAKEN FROM HIM. ESTAFA CASES WERE FILED. BUT THESE CASES WERE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT COURT (CA) RULED THAT PETITIONER IS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR VALUE OF CHECKS, MORAL DAMAGES, NOMINAL DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES. SC AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION DELETING MORAL DAMAGES, NOMINAL DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES.

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT SINCE HE WAS FOUND WITHOUT CRIM LIABILITY HE MUST NOT ALSO BE CIVILLY LIABLE. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?

NO. IN CASE ACQUITTAL IS BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT, ACCUSED MAY BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE.

“Petitioner maintains that there is no basis for civil liability because he was found innocent of the crime charged. Such argument must fail. It is entrenched in jurisprudence, that the extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only a preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and ( c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted.”

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES?

NO. TO BE ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES THERE MUST BE PLEADING AND PROOF. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARE ONLY IN ADDITION TO MORAL DAMAGES WHICH MUST BE PROVEN FIRST.

WHAT ARE THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA THRU MISAPPROPRIATION?

  • that the money, good or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, of on commission, of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
  • that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;
  • that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
  • that there is demand made by the offended party on the offender.

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”.

CASE 2020-0034: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEFFREY DERECO y HAYAG (SUBJECT/S: RAPE) (G.R. NO. 243625, DECEMBER 2, 2020, PERALTA, C.J) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS DERECO)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the April 11, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CR-HC No. 08172, finding accused-appellant Jeffrey Dereco y Hayag GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape, as defined in and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, is AFFIRMED. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn an interest rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum to be computed from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ACCUSED COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT PUNISHABLE UNDER PAR 2 OF ART 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. BUT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE INFORMATION.

It is fundamental that, in criminal prosecutions, every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of the crime charged. No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. Thus, the prosecuting arm of the Government is reminded that prudence should be exercised as to what should be alleged in the Information, as the latter is the battleground of all criminal cases. 29

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”.

CASE 2021-0003: CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/MAXIMO A. BORJE, ET AL. VS PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 236807, G.R. NO. 236810, 12 JAN 2021) (SUBJECT/S: ESTAFA; PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IN CONSPIRACY WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS) (BRIEF TITLE: DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE AND BORJE VS PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the consolidated petitions for review filed by petitioners Maximo A. Borje (G.R. No. 236810) and Conchita M. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 236807), dated March 12, 2018, and March 9, 2018, respectively, are DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated November 10, 2016, in the consolidated Criminal Case No. 28100 and Criminal Case No. 28253, and its Resolution dated January 15, 2018 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 28100 for Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents, petitioners are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from six ( 6) months and one ( 1) day of prisi6n correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prisi6n mayor-, as maximum, and to pay a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

CAN A  PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BE CONVICTED UNDER A LAW PUNISHING ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS?

YES IF THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IS IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

“As discussed above, petitioner Dela Cruz is in conspiracy with the other co-accused. Without the participation of petitioner Dela Cruz in the falsification of Cash Invoices through her sole proprietorship DEB, the reimbursements amounting to PS, 166,539.00 would not have been facilitated. Thus, since petitioner Dela Cruz is in conspiracy with the other co-accused, it is of no moment that she is not a public officer. She is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019.”

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”.

CASE 2021-0002: AMRODING LINDONGAN y AMPATUA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (UDK-16615, 15 FEB 2021, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DRUG CASE DISMISSED) (BRIEF TITLE: LINDONGAN VS PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition 1s GRANTED. The Court hereby resolves as follows:

l) The Entry of Judgment dated January 17, 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08782 is RECALLED; and

2) The Decision dated February 28, 2018 as well as the Resolutions dated July 25, 2018 and January 27, 2020 rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08782 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Amroding Lindongan y Ampatu (Lindongan) is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of l indongan. unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and (b) inform the  Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

As a final word, the Court, in People v. Miranda,60 issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It declared that “[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, then the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.”61 So must it be in the case of Lindongan, whose acquittal is clearly in order.”

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”.

CASE SC-2021-0001: LETTER OF MRS. MA. CRISTINA ROCO CORONA REQUESTING THE GRANT OF RETIREMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE LATE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONAAND HER CLAIM FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION AS HIS WIFE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 (A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC, JANUARY 12, 2021 HERNANDO, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby DECLARED entitled to retirement benefits and other allowances under Republic Act No. 9946 equivalent to a five-year lump sum of the salary and other allowances he was receiving at the time of his removal by impeachment on May 29, 2012. The claim of survivorship benefits of Ma. Cristina Roco Corona is hereby GRANTED reckoned from the lapse of the five-year period on the lump sum. All benefits granted herein are ordered immediately RELEASED to his widow and beneficiary, Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, subject to usual clearances.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Mere eligibility for optional retirement at the time of death, not actual retirement, suffices to grant survivorship benefits upon the bereaved surviving spouse of a deceased magistrate. Even if so declared ineligible for said optional retirement, there is established ground to deem the former Chief Justice as involuntarily retired due to the events immediately following his ouster by impeachment. As Chief Justice Corona had met the qualifications for an optional retirement, his widow, who likewise possesses none of the disqualifications under AC No. 81-2010 for entitlement, must be consoled by the grant of the benefits that are legally accorded to her as a surviving legitimate spouse of a magistrate under RA 9946.

TO READ THE CASE CLICK THE FILE BELOW TO DOWNLOAD THE CASE. THEN OPEN THE DOWNLOADED CASE.

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”.

CASE 2020-33: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPAROAND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUZ IN FAVOR OF ALICIA JASPER LUCENA; RELISSA SANTOS LUCENA AND FRANCIS B. LUCENA VS. SARAH ELAGO, KABATAAN PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE; ALEX DANDAY, NATIONAL SPOKEPERSON OF ANAKBAYAN, CHARY DELOS REYES, BIANCA GACOS, JAY ROVEN BALAIS VILLAFUERTE, MEMBERS AND RECRUITERS OF ANAK BAYAN; AND ATTY. MARIA KRISTINA CONTI (G.R. NO. 252120, SEPTEMBER 15 2020, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WRIT OF AMPARO; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)

DISPOSITIVE:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the prayers for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus are hereby DENIED. The instant petition is DISMISSED.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT DOES WRIT OF AMPARO COVER?

ONLY EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS AND ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES.

REASON OF THE COURT IN NOT GRANTING WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS CORPUS?

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”.

CASE 2020-0032: ATTY. BRYAN S. LIM AND NESTOR R. WONG  VS. ATTY. JOSE C. TABILIRAN JR. (A.C. NO. 10793, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DUTIES OF NOTARY PUBLIC)

DISPOSITIVE:

  SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

CAN A NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARIZE A DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY HIS SON?

NO, AS EXPLAINED BY THE COURT:

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”.

CASE 2020-0031: HENRIETTA PICZON-HERMOSO AND BEZALEL PICSON HERMOSO VS. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO (A.C. NO. 8116, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJCET/S: NOTARIAL PRACTICE)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and REVOKES his incumbent comm1ss10n as a notary public, if any. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The suspension from the practice of law, the prohibition from being commissioned as notary public, and the revocation of his notarial commission, if any, shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Decision by Atty. Parado. He is DIRECTED to immediately 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 Atty. Parado’s personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

ATTY. PARADO NOTARIZED A DOCUMENT EVEN THOUGH THOUGH THE PARTIES WERE NOT PRESENT. ALSO, ATTY PARADO DID NOT FILE ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST HIM. FURTHER, HE WAS NOT COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY PUBLIC WHEN HE NOTARIZED SUBJECT DEEDS.

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”.

CASE 2020-30: VALENTINO C. LEANO VS. ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN (A.C. NO. 12551, JULY 8, 2020, INTING, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NOTARIAL PRACTICE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, The Court finds respondent ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of professional Responsibility.  Accordingly, his Notarial Commission, if still existing, in REVOKED, and he is hereby PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED  fron being reappointed as Notary Public. Respondent ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN is likewise SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of I (1 ) year effective immediately.

Let copies of this DECISION be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Responded ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN personal record, and the Office of Court Administrator and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidelines.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THE NOTARY PUBLIC LEFT BLANK THE PROOF OF IDENTITY ON THE NOTARIZED DOCUMENT. THIS PROVES THAT THE NOTARY PUBLIC DID NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE PERSON SIGNING THE NOTARIZED DOCUMENT.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE REMEDY?

IT APPEARS FROM THE DECISION THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ALLEGATION THAT THE PERSON SIGNING THE DOCUMENT IS PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC. THE REQUIREMENT OF COMPETENT PROOF OF IDENTITY MAY BE DISPENSED WITH.

THE NOTARY PUBLIC DELEGATED THE RECORDING OF HIS NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER. IS THIS PROPER?

NO BECAUSE A NOTARY PUBLIC IS PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL ENTRIES IN HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER.

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”.

CASE 2020-29: ABOITIZ POWER RENEWABLES, INC./TIWI CONSOLIDATED UNION (APRI-TCU) ON BEHALF OF FE R. RUBIO, MA. VICTORIA A. BELMES, ELEANORE D. DALDE, RICARDO B. COMPETENTE, AND VICENTE A. MIRNDILLA; APRI-TIWI EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (APRI-TIELU) ON BEHALF OF VIRGILIO G. MACINAS, ROY D. DACULLO, ARNEL C. REPOTENTE, AND JAIME B. SARILLA; AND APRI-TIWI GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-DIALOGWU (APRI-TGPPPTEU-D) ON BEHALF OF VENER I. DELA ROSA, ARVID G. MUNI, ALVIN Y. SALONGA, ALVIN M. ENGUERO, MA. BLANCA M. ENGUERO, MA. BLANCA I. FALCON, AND SALVE V. LIZARDO, VS. ABOITIZ POWER RENEWABLES, INC., MICHAEL B. PIERCE, ATTY. MARTIN JOHN YASAY, JUAN FELIPE ALFONSO, ARNEL SUMAGUI, WILFREDO G. SARMAGO, AND ROBERTO L. URBANO, (G.R. NO. 237036, JULY 8, 2020, DELOS-SANTOS, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR Sp No. 141100 dated February 21, 2017 and the Resolution dated January 11, 2018 are hereby AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE RULE WHEN EVIDENCE IS CLEAR IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER, NLRC AND COURT OF APPEALS?

UNANIMOUS FINDINGS OF THE THREE TRIBUNALS (LABOR ARBITER, NLRC AND CA) ARE BINDING UPON THE SUPREME COURT.

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”.

CASE 2020-28: EDDA V. HENSON VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. NO. 230185, JULY 7, 2020, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE)

DISPOSITIVE:

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”.

CASE 2020-27: FREDIEROSE TAMBOA y LADAY VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 248264, JULY 27, 2020, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: APPEAL SET ASIDE DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL AND MERIF OF APPEAL)

DISPOSITIVE:

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE. COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT ACCUSED WAS GUILTY. ITS DECISION BECAME FINAL. BUT SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL BY NOT FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF AND ALSO DUE TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL. ARRESTING OFFICER DID NOT FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE.

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”.

CASE 2020-0026: ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF ASIA (now FIRST BALFOUR INCORPORATED) VS. SEGUNDINO PALLE, FELIX VELOSA, ALBERTO PAMPANGA, RANDY GALABO, MARCO GALAPIN, and GERARDO FELICITAS (G.R. NO. 201247, JULY 13, 2020, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: LABOR LAW; TERMINATION OF PROJECT NOT GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF REGULAR EMPLOYEE)

DISPOSITIVE:

       

“ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition is DENIED.  The assailed September 13, 2011 DECISION and the March 22, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 114599 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all, monetary award from the finality of this DECISION until fully paid.  No pronouncement as to the costs.

      

  So Ordered.”

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”.

CASE 07: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EMMA LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR AND SHERRYL LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR (G.R. NO. 237697, JULY 15, 2020, PERALTA, C.J.) (SUBJECT/S: TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS?

THE ACCUSED ARGUED THAT EXCEPT FOR ONE THERE WAS NO INDECENT SHOWS PERFORMED BY THE VICTIMS, THUS THERE WAS NO TRAFFICKING. IS THEIR ARGUMENT CORRECT.

NO. THE MATERIAL FACT IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PERPETRATORS IS TO ENGAGE THE VICTIMS IN PROSTITUTION OR SEXUAL EXPLOITATION.

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”.

CASE 2020-0024: BRIG. GEN. MARCIAL A. COLLAO IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING GENERAL HEADQUARTERS AND HEAD QUARTERS SUPPORT GROUP, PHILIPPINE ARMY VS. MOISES ALBANIA (G.R. NO. 228905, JULY 15, 2020, PERALTA, C. J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; REJOINDER OF PARTIES)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

GEN. CABUSAO FILED A COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER AGAINST ALBANIA WHO WAS LESSEE IN PROPERTY OF PHILIPPINE ARMY. METC RULED IN FAVOR OF GENERAL CABUSAO. ON APPEAL RTC DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD BE PHILIPPINE ARMY BECAUSE GEN. CABUSAO DOES NOT STAND TO BE BENEFITED OR INJURED. IS RTC CORRECT?

NO. NON JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. RTC SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS.

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”.

CASE 08: NENITA KO VS. ATTY. LADIMIR IAN G. MADURAMENTE and ATTY MERCY GRACE L. MADURAMENTE (A.C. NO. 11118 Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2140, JULY 14, 2020, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISBARMENT)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE THE TWO LAWYERS WERE DISBARRED BY THE SUPREME COURT. SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR LAWYERS:

FIRST, LAWYERS ARE DISCOURAGED FROM GOING INTO BUSINESS WITH CLIENTS; SECOND, NO INFLUENCE PEDDLING; THIRD, LAWYERS MUST NOT MINGLE THEIR CLIENT’S FUNDS WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS.

DO NOT ENGAGE IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH CLIENTS

NO INFLUENCE PEDDLING:

DO NOT COMMINGLE FUNDS:

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 March 30, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2017 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB Nos. 1244 and 1345 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

DKS IS PERFORMING SERVICES TO FOREIGN CLIENTS. CAN DKS CLAIM INPUT TAX CREDITS FOR THESE SERVICES.

YES. BECAUSE WHILE THESE ARE VAT ZERO RATED THEY ARE STILL VAT COVERED BUT ONLY THEIR VAT RATE IS ZERO.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS SO DKS CAN AVAIL OF SUCH INPUT VAT CREDITS?

FIRST, DKS MUST BE VAT-REGISTERED. SECOND THE FOREIGN CLIENTS MUST BE COMPANIES REGISTERED ABROAD. THIRD THEY MUST NOT ENGAGE IN BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

DID DKS CLAIM SUCH VAT INPUT CREDITS?

NOT ALL BECAUSE DKS FAILED TO SUBMIT PROOFS THAT ALL OF THEIR FOREIGN CLIENTS ARE NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

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 May 23, 2018 and the Resolution dated June 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 107654 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

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 DENIED.  The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132942, dated May 12, 2014 and August 11, 2014 respectively are hereby AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER DIAZ QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT BECAUSE IT DID NOT STATE THE NO. OF HER HOUSE WHICH IS NO. 172. SHE SAID THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS. IS HER CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO. THERE WERE SKETCHES DRAWN AS WELL AS FLOOR PLAN CLEARLY INDICATING THE PLACE OF PETITIONER. THE RULE IS THAT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED IS SUFFICIENT IF BY SUCH A DESCRIPTION THE OFFICER CAN ASCERTAIN AND IDENTIFY THE PLACE.

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 21, 2019 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB No. 1656 (CTA Case No. 8899) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The case is REMANDED to the CTA-Second Division for its resolution on the merits, in accordance with the Decision.

So Ordered.”

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 appeal is GRANTED. The decision dated February 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CR HC No. 01366-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Accordingly, accused-appellant RANILO S. SUAREZ is AQUITTED of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHY WAS THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED?

BECAUSE THERE WERE UNJUSTIFIED DEVIATIONS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THESE DEVIATIONS?

THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE DRUGS PURPORTEDLY SEIZED WAS COMPROMISED.

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.

PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW:

TRADEMARK CASE 0002-04 NOV 1992: G.R. NO. 71189- FABERGE INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND CO BENG KAY, RESPONDENTS. (MELO, J.)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER REGISTERED ITS TRADEMARK “BRUT” FOR AFTER SHAVE LOTION, SHAVING CREAM, DEODORANT, TALCUM POWER AND TOILET SOAP. LATER RESPONDENT REGISTERED ITS TRADEMARK “BRUTE” FOR BRIEFS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THESE MARKS ARE NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR BECAUSE OF THE GLARING DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PRODUCTS OF PETITIONER AND THAT OF RESPONDENT.

 

WHAT IS THE CENTRAL RULING OF THE COURT ON THIS CASE?

 

“The glaring discrepancies between the two products had been amply portrayed to such an extent that indeed, “a purchaser who is out in the market for the purpose of buying respondent’s BRUTE brief would definitely be not mistaken or misled into buying BRUT after shave lotion or deodorant” as categorically opined in the decision of the Director of Patents relative to the inter-partes case. (supra, at page 7).”

 

PETITIONER SAID IT ALSO INTENDED TO USE ITS TRADEMARK ON “BRIEFS”. IS THIS GROUND VALID?

 

NO. ONLY THOSE PRODUCTS SPECIFIED IN THE CERTIFICATE ARE COVERED. SAID THE COURT:

 

“. . . . . . In as much as petitioner has not ventured in the production of briefs, an item which is not listed in its certificate of registration, petitioner can not and should not be allowed to feign that private respondent had invaded petitioner’s exclusive domain. To be sure, it is significant that petitioner failed to annex in its Brief the so-called “eloquent proof that petitioner indeed intended to expand its mark “BRUT” to other goods” (Page 27, Brief for the Petitioner; Page 202, Rollo). Even then, a mere application by petitioner in this aspect does not suffice and may not vest an exclusive right in its favor that can ordinarily be protected by the Trademark Law. In short, paraphrasing Section 20 of the Trademark Law as applied to the documentary evidence adduced by petitioner, the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents can confer upon petitioner the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. . . . .”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, SEARCH THE CASE UNDER THE LAWPHIL PROJECT OF THE ARELLANO LAW FOUNDATION.

 

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”.

 

TRADEMARK CASE 0001: 10 JAN 1953-G.R. NO. L-4531- ANG SI HENG AND SALUSTIANA DEE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,  VS. WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., BENJAMIN CHUA, S.R. MENDINUETO, AND FELIMON COSIO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES (LABRADOR, J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PLAINTIFFS REGISTERED FIRST THE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” FOR MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. LATER, DEFENDANTS REGISTERED THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” FOR THEIR BUSINESS. PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THAT  THE USE OF THE WORDS “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” AS A BUSINESS NAME AND AS A CORPORATE NAME BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE DECEIVES THE PUBLIC INTO BUYING DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S GOODS UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE NAMES ARE THE PLAINTIFF’S OR HAVE THE SAME SOURCE AS PLAINTIFFS’ GOODS, THEREBY RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND DEFENDANTS ARGUE THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE ONLY MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR WHILE THEY ARE SELLING HATS, SHOES,  TOYS, PERFUMES, BAGS WHICH ARE NOT MANUFACTURED OR SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS AND WHILE THEY ALSO SELL  APPARELS THESE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED  IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS AND DECLARED THERE WAS  NO INFRINGEMENT.

 

IS THERE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” AND “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE”?

 

YES.

 

IS THERE CONFUSION OR DECEPTION?

 

NO, BECAUSE “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” IS A DEPARTMENT STORE WHILE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” IS NOT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

 

FURTHERMORE, THE NAME “WELLINGTON” IS ADMITTEDLY THE NAME OF THE TRADEMARK ON THE SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WHEREAS THE NAME USED BY THE DEFENDANT INDICATES NOT THESE MANUFACTURED ARTICLES OR ANY SIMILAR MERCHANDISE, BUT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

 

CAN THE PUBLIC BE SAID TO BE DECEIVED INTO THE BELIEF THAT THE GOODS BEING SOLD IN DEFENDANT’S STORE ORIGINATE FROM THE PLAINTIFFS?

 

NO  BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DEFENDANT’S STORE SELLS NO SHIRTS OR WEAR BEARING THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON,” BUT OTHER TRADEMARKS.

 

FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CUSTOMERS OF THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MISLED INTO PURCHASING DEFENDANT’S ARTICLES AND MERCHANDISE.

 

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.

 

TRADEMARK-0001-ANG SI HENG ET AL VS WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE INC ET AL.doc 

 

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”.

 

OMNIBUS GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY QUARANTINE IN THE PHILIPPINES

 

JUST CLICK THE FILE BELOW.

 

OMNIBUS GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICTY QUARANTINE

 

STARTING 01 JUNE 2020 METRO MANILA WILL BE PLACED UNDER GENERAL COMMUNITY QUARANTINE FROM MODIFIED ENHANCED COMMUNITY QUARANTINE. SECTION 4 OF THE OMNIBUS GUIDELINES REFER TO GENERAL COMMUNITY QUARANTINE.

 

CASE 2020-0016: GOOD EARTH ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. DANILO GARCIA, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 238761. JANUARY 22, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: GOOD EARTH VS GARCIA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER FILED EJECTMENT CASE AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN MTC AND GOT FAVORABLE DECISION. MTC DECISION WAS APPEALED TO RTC WHICH AFFIRMED IT. BUT CA REVERSED THE MTC DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE CASE WAS FILED AT MTC, PETITIONER FAILED TO SUBMIT AUTHORITY FOR SIGNATORY TO SIGN VERIFICATION AND NON FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION. SC REVERSED CA ON GROUND THAT A SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY WAS BELATEDLY FILED BY PETITIONER. BELATED FILING OF SUCH CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY IS ALLOWED.

 

BELATED FILING OF SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE CONFIRMING AUTHORITY OF SIGNATORY IN A CASE.

 

CASE LAW PROVIDES THAT A PARTY’S BELATED SUBMISSION OF A SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AS IT OPERATE TO AFFIRM THE AUTHORITY OF THE DELEGATE TO REPREENT SUCH PARTY BEFORE THE COURTS.

 

DOCTRINE

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0016-Good Earth Enterprises, Inc. Vs. Danilo Garcia, et al. 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0015: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOCEL BAÑARES DE DIOS @ “TATA” (G.R. NO. 243664. JANUARY 22, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS DE DIOS)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

DISPO 2

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IN THIS CASE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE CORPUS DELICTI HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PRESERVED. THUS APPELLANT’S CONVICTION MUST STAND.

 

DOCTRINE

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.

 

SCD-2020-0015-People of the Philippines Vs. Jocel Bañares De Dios @ “Tata”

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0014: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. R. LORENZ ESGUERRA Y BALIBER A.K.A. “RR” (G.R. NO. 243986. JANUARY 22, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS R. LORENZ ESGUERRA)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IDENTITY OF THE DANGEROUS DRUG MUST BE ESTABLISHED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY.

 

IDENTITY 

 

IN THIS CASE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER THE SEIZED DRUG REMAINED UNBROKEN.

 

CUSTODY

 

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0014-People of the Philippines Vs. R. Lorenz Esguerra y Baliber a.k.a. “RR”

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0013: SPOUSES AGERICO ABROGAR AND CARMELITA ABROGAR VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 221046. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE CAN BE USED TO IMPLORE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF RULES) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES ABROGAR VS LAND BANK)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONERS OBTAINED LOAN FROM LAND BANK. IT DEFAULTED. TO AVOID FORECLOSURE PETITIONERS FILED A CASE IN RTC TO ENJOIN LAND BANK TO ALLOW THEM TO SETTLE. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE. PETITIONERS APPEALED TO CA BY WAY OF CERTIORARI. CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF WRONG APPEAL. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE APPEAL AND NOT CERTIORARI. PETITIONERS SEEKS LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE THE MISTAKE WAS DUE TO THEIR LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE. SC SAID PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEIR LAWYER ACTED WITH MALICE AND THUS THEY CANNOT AVAIL OF THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

 

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE WITH REGARD’S TO LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE?

 

THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT.

 

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

 

YES, WHEN THE RECKLESS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL DEPRIVES THE CLIENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LWAS BUT COUNSEL’S ERROR MUST BE SO PALPABLE AND MALICIOUSLY EXERCISED THAT IT WOULD VIABLY BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

 

DOCTRINE

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.

 

SCD-2020-0013-Spouses Agerico Abrogar and Carmelita Abrogar Vs. Land Bank of the Philippines 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0012: MERIAM M. URMAZA VS. HON. REGIONAL PROCESUTOR NANNATUS CAESAR R. ROJA/HON. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR JUDYLITO V. ULANDAY AND RAMON TORRES DOMINGO (G.R. NO. 240012. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: PROCEDURE IN APPEALING RESOLUTIONS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS; ORAL DEFAMATION; INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR) (BRIEF TITLE: URMANZA VS REGIONAL PROSECUTOR ROJA ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER FILED AT THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE A CASE FOR ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR. THE PROSECUTOR DISMISSED THE CASES  FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR WHO ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. PETITIONER THEN FILED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA. CA DISMISSED PETITION FOR BEING FILED INCORRECTLY AT CA. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AT DOJ. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED RULING OF CA BUT STILL RULED ON THE MERITS. ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

 

WHAT IS THE APPEAL PROCEDURE FROM RESOLUTION OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OR CITY PROSECUTOR?

 

PROCEDURE 1

PROCEDURE 2

 

WAS CA CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION?

 

CA COULD HAVE GIVEN  THE PETITION DUE COURSE BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR IS FINAL, MEANING THE DISPUTE  CAN NOW BE RAISED  IN COURT. BUT PETITION DID NOT STATE THE DATE WHEN SHE RECEIVED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DENYING HER MOTION FOR RECON. THUS, THE PETITION WAS STILL DEFECTIVE AND COULD BE DISMISSED. YET THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDED TO RULE ON THE MERITS.

  

WHAT IS ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR?

 

ORAL 1

ORAL 2

 WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CONSTITUTING PROBABLE CAUSE) TO INDICT RESPONDENT IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR AND ORAL DEFAMATION?

 

NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

 

EVIDENCE

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0012-Meriam M. Urmaza Vs. Hon. Regional Procesutor Nannatus Caesar R. Roja, Hon. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Judylito V. Ulanday and Ramon Torres Domingo 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0011: PRIME STARS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION CORPORATION AND RICHARD U. PERALTA VS. NORLY M. BAYBAYAN AND MICHELLE V. BELTRAN (G.R. NO. 213961. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: RESIGNATION CONTRADICTED BY FILING COMPLAINT; NO DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS IN OFW EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY DOLE; RECRUITER SOLIDARILY LIABLE) (BRIEF TITLE: PRIME STARS ET AL VS BAYBAYAN ET AL.)

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT RESPONDENT BELTRAN VOLUNTARILY PRE-TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BY SIGNING A MUTUAL CONTRACT ANNULMENT AGREEMENT. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE THIS THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AT NLRC IS INCONSISTENT WITH RESIGNATION.

 

EXECUTION OF RESIGNATION

 

PETITIONER SAID THAT SINCE THEY ALREADY PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF RESIGNATION THE BURDEN OF PROOF NOW LIES WITH BELTRAN. IS THIS CORRECT?

 

NO, THE BURDEN IS WITH THE EMPLOYER STILL. THE ALLEGED RESIGNATION IS AMBIGUOUS AND DOUBTFUL.

 

BURDEN OF PROVING

 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT  RESPONDENTS SIGNED AN ADDENDUM WHICH ALTERED THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY POEA. THEREFORE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE ADDENDUM. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE THE LABOR CODE AND POEA RULES PROHIBIT DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS AND  ALTERATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS APPROVED BY DOLE.

 

NO ALTERATION

 

IS THE RECRUITER, PRIME STARS, LIABLE?

 

YES. UNDER R.A. 8042 THE RECRUITER IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE  FOREIGN EMPLOYER.

 

SOLIDARY 1 

SOLIDARY 2

  

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.

 

SCD-2020-0011-Prime Stars International Promotion Corporation and Richard U. Peralta Vs. Norly M. Baybayan and Michelle V. Beltran

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0010: MICHAEL ADRIANO CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 228572. JANUARY 27, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORP.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER FILED HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA FROM AN NLRC DECISION SUSTAINING THE LABOR’S ARBITER DECISION FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE. IN HIS PETITION, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MALICE OR BAD FAITH, HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. CA SUSTAINED NLRC. PETITIONER FILED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. CA DENIED SAID MOTION IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS FILED LATE COUNTING FROM DATE THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF CA.  SUPREME COURT SAID THE COUNTING OF THE APPEAL PERIOD MUST BE BASED ON THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF C.A. THUS SC REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CA FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

 

WHY SHOULD THE DATE BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED COPY OF NOTICE AND NOT FROM DATE PARTY RECEIVED COPY?

 

BECAUSE THE PARTIES GENERALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR MECHANICS OF AN APPEAL OR AVAILMENT OF LEGAL REMEDIES.

 

DOCTRINE

 

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0010-Michael Adriano Calleon Vs. HZSC Realty Corporation, et al.

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”.

 

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11469: AN ACT DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ARISING FROM THE CORONA VIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) SITUATION AND A NATIONAL POLICY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR A LIMITED PERIOD AND SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, TO EXERCISE POWERS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY OUT THE DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

 

WHAT IS THE SHORT TITLE OF THE LAW?
BAYANIHAN TO HEAL AS ONE ACT.
WHAT IS BEING DECLARED IN THIS LAW?
A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS BEING DECLARED OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

 

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THIS DECLARATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY?

 

THESE REASONS ARE:

 

– THE CONTINUING RISE OF CONFIRMED CASES OF COVID-19;
– THE SERIOUS THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND LIVES OF OUR COUNTRYMEN;
– THE LONG-TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THEIR MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD; AND
– THE SEVERE DISRUPTION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES.

 

UNDER THE DECLARATION OF POLICY WHAT ARE THE TASKS TO BE DONE?
(A) MITIGATE, IF NOT CONTAIN, THE TRANSMISSION OF COVID-19;

 

(B) IMMEDIATELY MOBILIZE ASSISTANCE IN THE PROVISION OF BASIC NECESSITIES TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY THE IMPOSITION OF COMMUNITY QUARANTINE, ESPECIALLY INDIGENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES;

 

(C) UNDERTAKE MEASURES THAT WILL PREVENT THE OVERBURDENING OF THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM;

 

(D) IMMEDIATELY AND AMPLY PROVIDE HEALTHCARE, INCLUDING MEDICAL TESTS AND TREATMENTS, TO COVID-19 PATIENTS, PERSONS UNDER INVESTIGATION (PUIS), OR PERSONS UNDER MONITORING (PUMS);

 

(E) UNDERTAKE A PROGRAM FOR RECOVERY AND REHABILITATION, INCLUDING A SOCIAL AMELIORATION PROGRAM AND PROVISION OF SAFETY NETS TO ALL AFFECTED SECTORS;

 

(F) ENSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT, ADEQUATE AND READILY AVAILABLE FUNDING TO UNDERTAKE THE FOREGOING;

 

(G) PARTNER WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO DELIVER THESE MEASURES AND PROGRAMS QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY; AND

 

(H) PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL FILIPINOS.

 

WHAT IS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE TASKS?

 

TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS PROVIDED IN THIS LAW.
WHAT POWER IS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT UNDER THIS LAW?

 

THE POWER TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY MEASURES TO RESPOND TO CRISIS BROUGHT BY THE PANDEMIC:
(a) FOLLOWING WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES AND BEST PRACTICES, ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO PREVENT OR SUPPRESS FURTHER TRANSMISSION AND SPREAD OF COVID-19 THROUGH EFFECTIVE EDUCATION, DETECTION, PROTECTION, AND TREATMENT;

 

(b) EXPEDITE AND STREAMLINE THE ACCREDITATION OF TESTING KITS AND FACILITATE PROMPT TESTING BY PUBLIC AND DESIGNATED PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF PUIS AND PUMS, AND THE COMPULSORY AND IMMEDIATE ISOLATION AND TREATMENT OF PATIENTS: PROVIDED, THAT THE COST OF TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 PATIENTS SHALL BE COVERED UNDER THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION;

 

(c) PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY SUBSIDY TO AROUND EIGHTEEN (18) MILLION LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: PROVIDED, THAT THE SUBSIDY SHALL AMOUNT TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (₱5,000.00) TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (₱8,000.00) A MONTH FOR TWO (2) MONTHS: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE SUBSIDY SHALL BE COMPUTED BASED ON THE PREVAILING REGIONAL MINIMUM WAGE RATES: PROVIDED, FINALLY, THAT THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM THE CURRENT CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM AND RICE SUBSIDY SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE EMERGENCY SUBSIDY AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT;

 

(d) ENSURE THAT ALL PUBLIC HEALTH WORKERS ARE PROTECTED BY PROVIDING THEM WITH A “COVID-19 SPECIAL RISK ALLOWANCE”, IN ADDITION TO THE HAZARD PAY GRANTED UNDER THE MAGNA CARTA OF PUBLIC HEALTH WORKERS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7305;

 

(e) DIRECT THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION (PHILHEALTH) TO SHOULDER ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HEALTH WORKERS IN CASE OF EXPOSURE TO COVID-19 OR ANY WORK-RELATED INJURY OR DISEASE DURING THE DURATION OF THE EMERGENCY;

 

(f) PROVIDE COMPENSATION OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱100,000.00) TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HEALTH WORKERS WHO MAY CONTRACT SEVERE COVID-19 INFECTION WHILE IN THE LINE OF DUTY PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT A COMPENSATION OF ONE MILLION PESOS (₱1,000,000.00) SHALL BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HEALTH WORKERS, WHO MAY DIE WHILE FIGHTING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PROVIDED, FINALLY, THAT THIS SHALL HAVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2020;

 

(g) ENSURE THAT ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUS) ARE ACTING WITHIN THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF ALL THE RULES, REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO THIS ACT; ARE IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS OF COMMUNITY QUARANTINE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS LAID DOWN FOR THE SUBJECT AREA, WHILE ALLOWING LGUS TO CONTINUE EXERCISING THEIR AUTONOMY IN MATTERS UNDEFINED BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OR ARE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS IT HAS SET; AND ARE FULLY COOPERATING TOWARDS A UNIFIED, COHESIVE AND ORDERLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY TO ADDRESS COVID-19: PROVIDED, THAT ALL LGUS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED FOR THEIR CALAMITY FUND SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND SUPPORT FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

 

(h) CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 17, ARTICLE XII OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO REQUIRES, DIRECT THE OPERATION OF ANY PRIVATELY-OWNED HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL AND HEALTH FACILITIES INCLUDING PASSENGER VESSELS AND, OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS, TO HOUSE HEALTH WORKERS, SERVE AS QUARANTINE AREAS, QUARANTINE CENTERS, MEDICAL RELIEF AND AID DISTRIBUTION LOCATIONS, OR OTHER TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES; AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO FERRY HEALTH, EMERGENCY, AND FRONTLINE PERSONNEL AND OTHER PERSONS: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE FOREGOING ENTERPRISES SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE OWNERS OF THE ENTERPRISE, WHO SHALL RENDER A FULL ACCOUNTING TO THE PRESIDENT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE UTILITY OR BUSINESS AS BASIS FOR APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DAMAGE OR COSTS INCURRED BY THE OWNER OR THE POSSESSOR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIVE SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PERSON ENTITLED TO THE POSSESSION OF SUCH PRIVATE PROPERTIES
OR BUSINESSES AFTER THE SITUATION HAS STABILIZED OR AT THE SOONEST TIME PRACTICABLE: PROVIDED, FINALLY, THAT IF THE FOREGOING ENTERPRISES UNJUSTIFIABLY REFUSE OR SIGNIFY THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER CAPABLE OF OPERATING THEIR ENTERPRISES FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN, THE PRESIDENT MAY TAKE OVER THEIR OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS AND SAFEGUARDS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION;

 

(i) CONTINUE TO ENFORCE MEASURES TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM HOARDING, PROFITEERING, INJURIOUS SPECULATIONS, MANIPULATION OF PRICES, PRODUCT DECEPTIONS, AND CARTELS, MONOPOLIES OR OTHER COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, OR OTHER PERNICIOUS PRACTICES AFFECTING THE SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENT OF FOOD, CLOTHING, HYGIENE AND SANITATION PRODUCTS, MEDICINE AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES, FUEL, FERTILIZERS, CHEMICALS, BUILDING MATERIALS, IMPLEMENTS, MACHINERY EQUIPMENT AND SPARE PARTS REQUIRED IN AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF PRIME NECESSITY, WHETHER IMPORTED OR LOCALLY PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED;

 

(j) ENSURE THAT DONATION, ACCEPTANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH PRODUCTS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY ARE NOT UNNECESSARILY DELAYED AND THAT HEALTH PRODUCTS FOR DONATION DULY CERTIFIED BY THE REGULATORY AGENCY OR THEIR ACCREDITED THIRD PARTY FROM COUNTRIES WITH ESTABLISHED REGULATION SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLEARED: PROVIDED, THAT THIS SHALL NOT APPLY TO HEALTH
PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE A CERTIFICATION OR CLEARANCE FROM FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA);

 

(k) UNDERTAKE THE PROCUREMENT OF THE FOLLOWING AS THE NEED ARISES, IN THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS MANNER, AS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9184 OR THE “GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REFORM ACT” AND OTHER RELEVANT LAWS:

 

(1) GOODS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT SUCH AS GLOVES, GOWNS, MASKS, GOGGLES, FACE SHIELDS, SURGICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; LABORATORY EQUIPMENT AND ITS REAGENTS; MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES; SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE FOR LABORATORY AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, SURGICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; MEDICAL SUPPLIES, TOOLS, AND CONSUMABLES SUCH AS ALCOHOL, SANITIZERS, TISSUE, THERMOMETERS, HAND SOAP, DETERGENT, SODIUM HYDROCHLORIDE, CLEANING MATERIALS, POVIDONE IODINE, COMMON MEDICINES (E.G., PARACETAMOL TABLET AND SUSPENSION, MEFENAMIC ACID, VITAMINS TABLET AND SUSPENSION, HYOSCINE TABLET AND SUSPENSION, ORAL REHYDRATION SOLUTION, AND CETIRIZINE TABLET AND SUSPENSION); TESTING KITS, AND SUCH OTHER SUPPLIES OR EQUIPMENT AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE DOH AND OTHER RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: PROVIDED, THAT THE DOH SHALL PRIORITIZE THE ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AFORESAID GOODS, SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES TO THE FOLLOWING:

 

i. PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES IN THE REGIONS, PROVINCES, OR CITIES, THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS COVID-19 REFERRAL HOSPITALS, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PHILIPPINE GENERAL HOSPITAL, LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND DR. JOSE N. RODRIGUEZ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL;

 

ii. PRIVATE HOSPITALS WHICH HAVE EXISTING CAPACITIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORT CARE AND TREATMENT TO COVID-19 PATIENTS; AND

 

iii. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LABORATORIES THAT HAVE EXISTING CAPACITIES TO TEST SUSPECTED COVID-19 PATIENTS.

 

(2) GOODS AND SERVICES FOR SOCIAL AMELIORATION MEASURES IN FAVOR OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES;

 

(3) LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY OR VENUE FOR USE TO HOUSE HEALTH WORKERS OR SERVE AS QUARANTINE CENTERS, MEDICAL RELIEF AND AID DISTRIBUTION LOCATIONS, OR TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES;

 

(4) ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES;

 

(5) UTILITIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER CRITICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO OPERATION OF QUARANTINE CENTERS, MEDICAL RELIEF AND AID DISTRIBUTION CENTERS AND TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES; AND

 

(6) ANCILLARY SERVICES RELATED TO THE FOREGOING.

 

(l) PARTNER WITH THE PHILIPPINE RED CROSS, AS THE PRIMARY HUMANITARIAN AGENCY THAT IS AUXILIARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN GIVING AID TO THE PEOPLE, SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT, IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES INCIDENTAL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID-19;

 

(m) ENGAGE TEMPORARY HUMAN RESOURCES FOR HEALTH (HRH) SUCH AS MEDICAL AND ALLIED MEDICAL STAFF TO COMPLEMENT OR SUPPLEMENT THE CURRENT HEALTH WORKFORCE OR TO MAN THE TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES TO BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 K(4) OF THIS ACT: PROVIDED, THAT HRH TO BE HIRED ON TEMPORARY BASIS SHALL RECEIVE THE APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT ALL HRH SERVING IN THE FRONT LINE DURING THE STATE OF CALAMITY DUE TO COVID-19, SHALL RECEIVE AN ACTUAL HAZARD DUTY PAY FROM THE GOVERNMENT;

 

(n) ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF CREDIT TO THE PRODUCTIVE SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY ESPECIALLY IN THE COUNTRYSIDE THROUGH MEASURES SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOWERING THE EFFECTIVE LENDING RATES OF INTEREST AND RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF LENDING INSTITUTIONS;

 

(o) LIBERALIZE THE GRANT OF INCENTIVES FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR IMPORTATION OF CRITICAL OR NEEDED EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES FOR THE CARRYING-OUT OF THE POLICY DECLARED HEREIN, INCLUDING HEALTHCARE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES: PROVIDED, THAT IMPORTATION OF THESE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM IMPORT DUTIES, TAXES AND OTHER FEES;

 

(p) ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF ESSENTIAL GOODS, IN PARTICULAR FOOD AND MEDICINE, BY ADOPTING MEASURES AS MAY REASONABLY BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE AND/OR MINIMIZE DISRUPTION TO THE SUPPLY CHAIN, ESPECIALLY FOR BASIC COMMODITIES AND SERVICES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE;

 

(q) REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO PRIORITIZE AND ACCEPT CONTRACTS, SUBJECT TO FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS, FOR MATERIALS AND SERVICES NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE HEREIN DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY;

 

(r) REGULATE AND LIMIT THE OPERATION OF ALL SECTORS OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH LAND, SEA OR AIR, WHETHER PRIVATE OR PUBLIC;

 

(s) REGULATE TRAFFIC ON ALL ROADS, STREETS, AND BRIDGES, AND ACCESS THERETO; PROHIBIT PUTTING UP OF ENCROACHMENTS OR OBSTACLES; AUTHORIZE THE REMOVAL OF ENCROACHMENTS AND ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES; AND PERFORM ALL OTHER RELATED ACTS;

 

(t) CONTINUE TO AUTHORIZE ALTERNATIVE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY, IN OTHER INDEPENDENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL BODIES, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR;

 

(u) CONSERVE AND REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF POWER, FUEL, ENERGY AND WATER, AND ENSURE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF THE SAME;

 

(v) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, DIRECT THE DISCONTINUANCE OF APPROPRIATED PROGRAMS, PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES (P/A/P) OF ANY AGENCY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR -CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS (GOCCS), IN THE FYS 2019 AND 2020 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT (GAA), WHETHER RELEASED OR UNRELEASED, THE ALLOTMENTS FOR WHICH REMAIN UNOBLIGATED, AND UTILIZE THE SAVINGS GENERATED THEREFROM TO AUGMENT THE ALLOCATION FOR ANY ITEM DIRECTLY RELATED TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS AND RESPONSE MEASURES, WHICH ARE NECESSARY OR BENEFICIAL IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY, CONSISTENT WITH THE HEREIN DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN THE BUDGET SHALL BE PRIORITIZED FOR AUGMENTATION:

 

(1) UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH – OPERATIONAL BUDGETS OF GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS, PRIMARILY THOSE IDENTIFIED FOR TREATMENT OF COVID-19; PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES; EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE; QUICK RESPONSE FUND;

 

(2) UNDER THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES – THE OPERATIONAL BUDGET OF THE PHILIPPINE GENERAL HOSPITAL;

 

(3) THE NATIONAL DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FUND OR CALAMITY FUND;

 

(4) PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO TULONG PANGHANAPBUHAY SA ATING DISADVANTAGED/DISPLACED WORKERS AND COVID-19 ADJUSTMENT MEASURES PROGRAM (CAMP);

 

(5) UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY – LIVELIHOOD SEEDING PROGRAM AND NEGOSYO SERBISYO SA BARANGAY;

 

(6) UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – RICE FARMERS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM;

 

(7) UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – SCHOOL-BASED FEEDING PROGRAM;

 

(8) UNDER VARIOUS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS IN CRISIS SITUATIONS (AICS), DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD AND NON-FOOD ITEMS, LIVELIHOOD ASSISTANCE GRANTS, AND SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING PROGRAM FOR DAYCARE CHILDREN;

 

(9) UNDER ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS;

 

(10) QUICK RESPONSE FUNDS LODGED IN THE VARIOUS RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DOH AND DSWD.

 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE DISCONTINUED PROGRAM, ACTIVITY OR PROJECT MAY BE REVIVED AT ANY TIME AFTER THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY HAS CEASED, AND NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 67 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11465 OR THE “GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2020”, MAY BE REVIVED AND PROPOSED FOR FUNDING WITHIN THE NEXT TWO (2) FISCAL YEARS;

 

(w) ANY UNUTILIZED OR UNRELEASED BALANCE IN A SPECIAL PURPOSE FUND, AS OF THE DATE OF DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE THEIR PURPOSE ABANDONED FOR THE DURATION OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY. ALL SUCH UNSPENT, UNUTILIZED OR UNRELEASED MONEY OR FUNDS SOURCED FROM COLLECTIONS OR RECEIPTS, INCLUDING FUTURE COLLECTIONS AND RECEIPTS, SHALL BE UTILIZED AND ARE HEREBY APPROPRIATED FOR SUCH MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE COVID-19 SITUATION AND ACCOMPLISH THE DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY HEREIN;

 

(x) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, REPROGRAM REALLOCATE, AND REALIGN FROM SAVINGS ON OTHER ITEMS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FY 2020 GAA IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND BENEFICIAL TO FUND MEASURES THAT ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY, INCLUDING SOCIAL AMELIORATION FOR AFFECTED COMMUNITIES, AND THE RECOVERY OF AREAS, SECTORS AND INDUSTRIES SEVERELY AFFECTED. ALL AMOUNTS SO REPROGRAMMED, REALLOCATED OR REALIGNED SHALL BE DEEMED AUTOMATICALLY APPROPRIATED FOR SUCH MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE COVID-19 SITUATION WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 9 HEREOF;

 

(y) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE PRESIDENT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ALLOCATE CASH, FUNDS, INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING UNUTILIZED OR UNRELEASED SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS, HELD BY ANY GOCC OR ANY NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN
ORDER TO ADDRESS THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY, AS DECLARED IN SECTION 3 HEREOF;

 

(z) MOVE STATUTORY DEADLINES AND TIMELINES FOR THE FILING AND SUBMISSION OF ANY DOCUMENT, THE PAYMENT OF TAXES, FEES, AND OTHER CHARGES REQUIRED BY LAW, AND THE GRANT OF ANY BENEFIT, IN ORDER TO EASE THE BURDEN ON INDIVIDUALS UNDER COMMUNITY QUARANTINE;

 

(aa) DIRECT ALL BANKS, QUASI-BANKS, FINANCING COMPANIES, LENDING COMPANIES, AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND PAG-IBIG FUND, TO IMPLEMENT A MINIMUM OF A THIRTY (30)-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL LOANS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SALARY, PERSONAL, HOUSING, AND MOTOR VEHICLE LOANS, AS WELL AS CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, FALLING DUE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE ENHANCED COMMUNITY QUARANTINE WITHOUT INCURRING INTERESTS, PENALTIES, FEES OR OTHER CHARGES, PERSONS WITH MULTIPLE LOANS SHALL LIKEWISE BE GIVEN THE MINIMUM THIRTY (30)-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR EVERY LOAN;

 

(bb) PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM OF THIRTY (30)-DAY GRACE PERIOD ON RESIDENTIAL RENTS FALLING DUE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE ENHANCED COMMUNITY QUARANTINE, WITHOUT INCURRING INTERESTS, PENALTIES, FEES, AND OTHER CHARGES;

 

(cc) IMPLEMENT AN EXPANDED AND ENHANCED PANTAWID PAMILYA PILIPINO PROGRAM, RESPONSIVE TO THE NEED POSED BY THE CRISIS, AND PROVISION OF AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHETHER IN CASH OR NON-CASH, WHICHEVER IS MORE PRACTICABLE, WHERE THE SECRETARY OF
SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, OR THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, WHEN RELEVANT, SHALL TRANSFER CASH, CASH VOUCHER, OR GOODS THROUGH THE LGUS OR DIRECTLY TO HOUSEHOLDS WHO HAVE NO INCOMES OR SAVINGS TO DRAW FROM, INCLUDING HOUSEHOLDS WORKING IN THE INFORMAL ECONOMY AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY RECIPIENTS OF THE CURRENT PANTAWID PAMILYA PILIPINO PROGRAM, OF AN AMOUNT ADEQUATE TO RESTORE CAPACITY TO PURCHASE BASIC FOOD AND OTHER ESSENTIAL ITEMS DURING THE DURATION OF THE QUARANTINE. TO CARRY OUT THIS SUBSECTION, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT MAY APPROVE THE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY AND LEVEL OF BENEFITS.

 

(dd) LIFT THE THIRTY PERCENT (30%) CAP ON THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THE QUICK RESPONSE FUND, AS PROVIDED FOR IN REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10121 OR THE “PHILIPPINE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2010”, DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY DUE TO COVID-19;

 

(ee) UNDERTAKE SUCH OTHER MEASURES AS MAY BE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO CARRY OUT THE DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY SUBJECT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.

 

IS THE PRESIDENT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT REPORTS TO CONGRESS?

 

YES. DURING MONDAY OF EVERY WEEK, THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBMIT A WEEKLY REPORT TO CONGRESS OF ALL ACTS PERFORMED DURING THE PRECEDING WEEK.

 

WHAT SHALL THE REPORTS CONTAIN?

 

IT SHALL INCLUDE THE AMOUNT AND CORRESPONDING UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS USED, AUGMENTED, REPROGRAMMED, REALLOCATED AND REALIGNED PURSUANT TO THIS ACT.
WHO SHALL MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT?

 

CONGRESS SHALL ESTABLISH A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF FOUR (4) MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER, RESPECTIVELY. THIS COMMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH ACTS, ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS PROVIDED HEREIN.
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES IMPOSED?

 

IN ADDITION TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS ALREADY PENALIZED BY EXISTING LAWS, THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES SHALL BE PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT OF TWO (2) MONTHS OR A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00) BUT NOT MORE THAN ONE MILLION PESOS (₱1,000,000.00), OR BOTH, SUCH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.

 

WHAT ARE PUNISHABLE OFFENSES?
(a) LGU OFFICIALS DISOBEYING NATIONAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES OR DIRECTIVES IN IMPOSING QUARANTINES;
(b) OWNERS AND POSSESSORS OF PRIVATELY-OWNED HOSPITALS, MEDICAL AND HEALTH FACILITIES, INCLUDING PASSENGER VESSELS, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS WHO UNJUSTIFIABLY REFUSE TO OPERATE PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT;
(c) ENGAGING IN HOARDING, PROFITEERING, INJURIOUS SPECULATIONS, MANIPULATION OF PRICES, PRODUCT DECEPTIONS, AND CARTELS, MONOPOLIES OR OTHER COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, OR OTHER PERNICIOUS PRACTICES AFFECTING THE SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENT OF FOOD, CLOTHING, HYGIENE AND SANITATION PRODUCTS, MEDICINE AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES, FUEL, FERTILIZERS, CHEMICALS, BUILDING MATERIALS, IMPLEMENTS, MACHINERY EQUIPMENT AND SPARE PARTS REQUIRED IN AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF PRIME NECESSITY, WHETHER IMPORTED OR LOCALLY PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED;

 

(d) REFUSAL TO PRIORITIZE AND ACCEPT CONTRACTS FOR MATERIALS AND SERVICES NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE HEREIN DECLARED NATIONAL POLICY;

 

(e) REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THIRTY (30)-DAY GRACE PERIODS PROVIDED HEREIN;

 

(f) INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS CREATING, PERPETRATING, OR SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION REGARDING THE COVID-19 CRISIS ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER PLATFORMS, SUCH INFORMATION HAVING NO VALID OR BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE POPULATION, AND ARE CLEARLY GEARED TO PROMOTE CHAOS, PANIC, ANARCHY, FEAR, OR CONFUSION; AND THOSE PARTICIPATING IN CYBER INCIDENTS THAT MAKE USE OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURRENT CRISIS SITUATION TO PREY ON THE PUBLIC THROUGH SCAMS, PHISHING, FRAUDULENT EMAILS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ACTS;

 

(g) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION SECTORS OR SECTORS, WHETHER LAND, SEA OR AIR, BE IT PRIVATE OR PUBLIC; AND
(h) IMPEDING ACCESS TO ROADS, STREETS AND BRIDGES; PUTTING-UP PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS OR OBSTACLES; AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO BE REMOVED;

 

SUPPOSE THE OFFENDER IS A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP OR ANY JURIDICAL PERSON WHO SHALL BE PUNISHED?

 

THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, MANAGERS, MANAGING PARTNERS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE OR WHO SHALL HAVE KNOWINGLY PERMITTED OR FAILED TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF THE SAME.
SUPPOSE THE OFFENDER IS AN ALIEN?

 

IN ADDITION TO THE PENALTIES HEREIN PRESCRIBED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE DEPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

 

SUPPOSE THE OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE?

 

HE SHALL , IN ADDITION TO THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED HEREIN, SUFFER PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
SECTION 7. CONSTRUCTION OR INTERPRETATION.— NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AN IMPAIRMENT, RESTRICTION OR MODIFICATION OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, IN CASE THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES, ORDERS, RULES OR REGULATIONS, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL PREVAIL.
SECTION 8. SEPARABILITY.— IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE IS DECLARED INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT OR THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY SUCH DECLARATION.

 

WHEN WILL THE ACT TAKE EFFECT AND FOR HOW LONG?

 

This Act shall take effect immediately upon its publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette and shall be in full force and effect only for three (3) months, unless extended by Congress: Provided, That the powers granted under this Act may be withdrawn sooner by means of a concurrent resolution of Congress or ended by Presidential Proclamation.

 

WHEN WAS THE ACT APPROVED?

 

MARCH 25, 2020.

 

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

 

TSH-2590-RA NO 11469 ENTITLED BAYANIHAN TO HEAL AS ONE ACT

 

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”.

CASE 2020-0009: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, FORMERLY OF BRANCH 66, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY (A.M. NO. RTJ-20-2578. JANUARY 28, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. JUDGE VILLAROSA)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

VILLAROSA-DISPO

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT WERE THE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY JUDGE VILLAROSA?

 

VILLAROSA-VIOLATIONS

  

ASIDE FROM THESE VIOLATIONS WHICH MANIFEST GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, WAS JUDGE VILLAROSA FOUND GUILTY IN THE PAST FOR SIMILAR VIOLATIONS?

 

YES. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY IN TWO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.

 

VILLAROSA-CONVICTIONS 

 

DID JUDGE VILLAROSA HAVE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE CASES WHEN THIS CASE WAS BEING DELIBERATED.

 

 

YES. HE HAS NINE PENDING ADMINSTRATIVE CASES.

 

VILLAROSA-PENDING 1VILLAROSA-PENDING 2 

 

WHAT IS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

 

VILLAROSA-DEFINITION-GROSS IGNORANCE

  

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.

 

SCD-2020-0009-Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa, formerly of Branch 66, Regional Trial Court, Makati City

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0008: (ZENAIDA MARTIN-ORTEGA VS. ATTY. ANGELYN A. TADENA) (A.C. NO. 12018. JANUARY 29, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: ORTEGA VS TADENA)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

ortega-dispo1

ortega-dispo2

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

ortega-doctrine

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0008-Zenaida Martin-Ortega Vs. Atty. Angelyn A. Tadena 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0007: (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MUSTAFA SALI Y ALAWADDING A.K.A. “TAPANG/PANG” (G.R. NO. 236596. JANUARY 29, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS SALI)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

ali-dispo1

ali-dispo2

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

ali-doctrine1

 …………………………………….. 

 

ali-doctrine2

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0007-People of the Philippines Vs. Mustafa Sali y Alawadding a.k.a. Tapang-Pang 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0006: (ENRIQUE JAVIER DE ZUZUARREGUI VS. ANTHONY DE ZUZUARREGUI (B.M. NO. 2796. FEBRUARY 11, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: ZUZUARREGUI VS. ZUZUARREGUI)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

zu-dispo01

 

zu-dispo02 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

zu-doctrine

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.

 

SCD-2020-0006-Enrique Javier De Zuzuarregui Vs. Anthony De Zuzurregui

 

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”.

 

 

CASE 2020-0005: NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, AS TRANSFEREE-IN-INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS. SPOUSES MARIANO S. TAGLAO AND CORAZON M. TAGLAO (G.R. NO. 223195. JANUARY 29, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORP VS SPOUSES TAGLAO)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

NATIONAL-DISPOSITIVE

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

NATIONAL DOCTRINE

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0005-National Transmission Corporation, as Transferee-in-Interest of the National Power Corporation Vs. Spouses Mariano S. Taglao and Corazon M. Taglao 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0004: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ERIC PADUA Y ALVAREZ A.K.A. JERICK PADUA Y ALVAREZ (G.R. NO. 239781. FEBRUARY 5, 2020, PERALTA, CJ (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS PADUA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

PADUA DISPO

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PADUA DOCTRINE

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0004-People of the Philippines Vs. Eric Padua y Alvarez a.k.a. Jerick Padua y Alvarez 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0003: ROBERTO R. IGNACIO AND TERESA R. IGNACIO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE TERESA R. IGNACIO ENTERPRISES VS. MYRNA P. RAGASA AND AZUCENA B. ROA (G.R. NO. 227896. JANUARY 29, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: IGNACIO ET AL VS RAGASA ET AL)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

CASTILLO-DISPO

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONERS IGNACIO HIRED RESPONDENTS TO LOOK FOR A BUYER FOR THEIR PROPERTIES.

 

RESPONDENTS FOUND A BUYER AND INTRODUCED THEM TO PETITIONERS. THEN  PETITIONERS STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH THE RESPONDENTS. LATER, RESPONDENTS LEARNED THAT PETITIONERS ENTERED INTO JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH THEIR BUYER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES. THEY DEMANDED THEIR COMMISSION FROM THE PETITIONERS WHO REFUSED TO GIVE THEM COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ANOTHER BROKER WHO NEGOTIATED WITH THE BUYER FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO COMMISSION BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS WERE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE BUYER/DEVELOPER. THE COURT ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ON THE PROPER INTEREST ON THE DAMAGES  IMPOSED. THE SC ALSO DISCUSSED THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT ONLY LEGAL ISSUES CAN BE RAISED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

 

 CASTILLO-PROXIMITY

 

WHAT IS THE RULE ON THE APPLICATION OF LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST?

 

CASTILLO-INTEREST 1

 

CASTILLO-INTEREST 2

CASTILLO-INTEREST 3 

 

 WHAT IS THE LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE USURY LAW?

 

6% TO BE APPLIED NOT RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 01 JULY 2013.

 

 

CASTILLO-INTEREST

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY FORBEARANCE? WHAT IS FORBEARANCE OF MONEY GOODS OR CREDIT?

 

IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE LENDER TO REFRAIN DURING A GIVEN PERIOD FROM REQUIRING THE BORROWER TO REPAY THE LOAN.

  

FOREBEARANCE OF MONEY, GOODS OR CREDIT IS AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE A PERSON ACQUIESCES TO THE TEMPORARY USE OF HIS MONEY, GOODS OR CREDIT PENDING HAPPENING OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

 

CASTILLO-FORBEARANCE

 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT ONLY LEGAL ISSUES BE RAISED IN THE SUPREME COURT?

 

CASTILLO-EXCEPTIONS

 

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0003-Roberto R. Ignacio and Teresa R. Ignacio doing business under the name and style Teresa R. Ignacio Enterprises Vs. Myrna P. Ragasa and Azucena B. Roa

 

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”.

 

CASE 2020-0002: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. R. LORENZ ESGUERRA Y BALIBER A.K.A. “RR” (G.R. NO. 243986. JANUARY 22, 2020 [DATE UPLOADED: 02/11/2020)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

esguerra dispo

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0002-People of the Philippines Vs. R. Lorenz Esguerra y Baliber a.k.a. “RR”

 

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”.

CASE 2020-0001: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO AND CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR. (G.R. NO. 227739. JANUARY 15, 2020, PERALTA, CJ) (SUBJECT/S: DANGEROUS DRUGS; PROOF OF DELIVERY TO ANOTHER PERSON NOT NECESSARY; CONSPIRACY)(BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS AMAGO ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SOMA-DISPO

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

ACCUSED ARGUES THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF DELIVERY OF THE DRUGS TO ANOTHER PERSON. IS THERE CONTENTION CORRECT.

 

NO.

 

SINCE THE CRIME IS MALUM PROHIBITUM THE ONLY THING TO PROVE IS THE MOVEMENT OF THE ILLEGAL DRUGS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. PROVING THE DELIVERY TO ANOTHER PERSON IS NOT NECESSARY.

 

SOMA-PROOF 1

 

. . . . . .

 

SOMA-PROOF 2

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0001-People of the Philippines Vs. Joseph Solamillo Amago and Cerilo Bolongaita Vendiola, Jr. 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0063: (CONNIE L. SERVO VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 234401. DECEMBER 5, 2019, LAZARO-JAVIER, J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION OF PDIC; APPEAL TO CA BY QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES) (BRIEF TITLE: SERVO VS PDIC)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SERVO-DISPOSTIVE

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER SERVO FILED A CLAIM AT PDIC ALLEGING THAT AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF GUTIERREZ WAS HERS. PDIC DENIED THE CLAIM BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT SHE OWNS THE ACCOUNT. SERVO FILED A CASE AT RTC. RTC SAID IT HAS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE PDIC IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND ITS DECISION HAS TO BE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS NOT AT RTC. SERVO FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARY BEFORE C.A. WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PRAYER  ASKING ALSO THAT C.A. CONSIDERS HER PETITION AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI QUESTIONING THE DECISION OF PDIC. C.A. AFFIRMED RTC DECISION. ON THE ALTERNATIVE PRAYER C.A. SAID THE ISSUE ON JURISDICTION MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE SC SINCE IT IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT SAID C.A. AND NOT RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER PDIC. THE ALTERNATIVE PRAYER OF SERVO MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS FILED LATE (2 YRS OR MORE THAN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF PDIC 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.

 

SCD-2019-0063-Connie L. Servo Vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation

 

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”.