Latest Entries »

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0062: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD/VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 207154/G.R. NO. 222046. DECEMBER 5, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: OMBUDSMAN VS SNTIDAD ET AL)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

santi dispositive

santi dispositive 2

 

DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

SANTIDAD WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND DISHONESTY FOR SIGNING INVOICE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF 21 VANS TO CONGRESSMAN ANDAYA WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSFER. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY BUT HE COMMITTED DISHONESTY.

 

HE WAS ALSO CRIMINALLY CHARGED BEFORE THE SANDIGANG BAYAN FOR FALSIFICATION OF THE INVOICE RECEIPT. HE WAS CONVICTED.

 

SUPREME COURT SAID SANTIDAD WAS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. THERE WERE SEVERAL SIGNS WHICH SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE VANS WERE ANOMALOUS. YET SANTIDAD DID NOT HEED THESE SIGNS.

 

SUPREME COURT EXONERATED HIM ON THE FALSIFICATION CHARGE. THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT PROVEN.

 

 

IN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WHAT IS VITAL?

 

THERE MUST BE MALICIOUS INTENT.

 

santi FALSIFIC

                        

 ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY SANTIDAD SAID THAT HE RELIED IN GOOD FAITH THAT HIS SUBORDINATES WOULD PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS REGULARLY. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

 

WRONG. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH WOULD HAVE ALERTED HIM TO EXERCISE MORE DILIGENCE AND HE FAILED TO DO SO, HE CANNOT RAISE SUCH DEFENSE.

 

santi GROSS

 

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-2019-0062-Office of the Ombudsman Vs. Venancio G. SantidadVenancio G. Santidad Vs. People 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 2019-0061: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOHN SANOTA Y SARMIENTO, DEO DAYTO Y GENORGA @ “RUBROB” AND ROLANDO ESPINELI Y ACEBO @ “LANDOY” (G.R. NO. 233659. DECEMBER 10, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS SANOTA ET AL.)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

sanota-dispositive

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THERE WAS ONLY ONE WITNESS. HE DID NOT SAW THE ACTUAL ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE. THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED. YET THE COURT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT.

 

sanota-CIRCUM 1

sanota-CIRCUM 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-2019-0061-People of the Philippines Vs. John Sanota y Sarmiento, Deo Dayto y Genorga @ “Rubrob” and Rolando Espineli y Acebo @ “Landoy”

 

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 2019-0060: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MANUEL C. BULATAO (G.R. NO. 200972. DECEMBER 11, 2019, HERNANDO, J.)  (SUBJECT/S: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; ABANDONMENT AND TERMINATION; DOUBT BEING RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE – EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE) (BRIEF TITLE: PNB VS. BULATAO)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

pnb dispositive

pnb dispositive 2

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

BULATAO WAS IT HEAD OF PNB. HE WAS INDUCED TO RETIRE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF PNB OFFERED RETIREMENT OPTION. AND  HE RETIRED BECAUSE HE DID NOT LIKE WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN HIS  GROUP. LATER HE WITHREW HIS RETIREMENT LETTER AND RESUMED WORKING. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE BOARD APPROVED HIS RESIGNATION. PNB CONSIDER HIS LETTER AS RESIGNATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RETIREMENT SCHEME IN PLACE. SUPREME COURT RULED HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. THE PROMISE OF RETIREMENT TO HIM CONSTITUTES PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. IF THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER HE INTENDED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN, SUCH DOUBT SHALL BE RESOLVED IN HIS FAVOR.

 

WHAT IS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL?

 

BULA-ESTOPPEL 

WHEN IS THERE ABANDONMENT?

 

WHEN THE EMPLOYEE FAILED TO REPORT FOR WORK AND WHEN THERE IS CLEAR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE TO ABANDON HIS WORK AS MANIFESTED BY OVERT ACT TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

 

BULA-ABANDONMENT

  

DID BULATAO COMMIT ABANDONMENT?

 

NO. BULATAO’S FILING OF AN ILLEGAL TERMINATION CASE SHOWS THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

  

WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHICH EVIDENCE IS TRUE, THAT DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE. EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE.

 

BULA-DOUBT

 

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-2019-0060-Philippine National Bank Vs. Manuel C. Bulatao

 

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 2019-0059: PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, INC. (G.R. NO. 236293. DECEMBER 10, 2019, PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.) (BRIEF TITLE: MALIGALIG VS SANDIGAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

mali-dispositive

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHOS IS A PUBLIC OFFICER?

 

ONE WHO BY LAW, ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT PERFORMS A PUBLIC FUNCTION. OR ONE IN WHOM A PUBLIC FUNCTION IS INVESTED TO BE EXERCISED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

 

mali-publ officer 1

mali-publ officer 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-2019-0059-Proceso L. Maligalig Vs Sandiganbayan 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 2019-0057: CARISSA E. SANTO VS. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU (G.R. NO. 232522. AUGUST 28, 2019, LAZARO-JAVIER) (SUBJECT/S: RETIREMENT BENEFITS; HOW COMPUTED)  (BRIEF TITLE: SANTO VS UNIVERSITY OF CEBU)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

santo-dispositive

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CEBU OFFERS OPTIONAL RETIREMENT TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED AT LEAST 15 YEARS OF SERVICE. THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT IS COMPUTED AT 15 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE. SANTO, 42 YEARS OLD, APPLIED FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT BUT INSISTS THAT THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT BE COMPUTED AT 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RETIREMENT LAW. UNIVERSITY OF SEBU CONTENDED THAT RETIREMENT LAW DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SANTO IS BELOW 60 YEARS OLD AND THEIR SCHOOL MANUAL EXPRESSLY STATES THAT SUCH OPTIONAL RETIREMENT IS RESIGNATION WITH SEPARATION BENEFIT SUPREME COURT SAID SHE IS ENTILED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER THE RETIREMENT LAW BECAUSE IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THE AMBIGUITY IN THE UNIVERSITY MANUAL (WHETHER RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT) MUST BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE RETIREE. THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

 

WHAT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO BENEFICIARY MUST BE APPLIED. ART. 287 OF THE LABOR CODE IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THUS ITS COMPUTATION OF 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE MUST BE APPLIED.

 

SANTO 1

 

SANTO 2

 

SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES RETIREMENT PLANS WHICH SET THE MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE  OF EMPLOYEES BELOW 60 YEARS OLD.

 

SANTO 3

 

SUPREME COURT WILL NOT SUSTAIN A RETIREMENT CLAUSE THAT GIVES RETIREES LESS BENEFITS THAT WHAT THE LAW GUARANTEES.

  

SANTO 4

 

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-2019-0058-Carissa E. Santo Vs. University of Cebu

 

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 2019-0057: LYDIA I. AGUIRRE VS. DIRECTOR CECILIA R. NIETO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE V, LEGASPI CITY (G.R. NO. 220224. AUGUST 28, 2019, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY; MISCONDUCT) (BRIEF TITLE: AGUIRRE VS DIRECTOR NIETO OF CSC.

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

AGUIRRE DISPO 1

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER ORDERED UNIFORM EXPENSE BE DEDUCTED FROM SALARY OF ELAURZA. PETIONER ALSO HAD ALTERCATION WITH ELAURZA. PETITIONER WAS CLEARED OF THE CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT.

 

AGUIRRE FACTS

  

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT? WHEN IS IT GRAVE?

 

MISCONDUCT IS TRANSGRESSION OF SOME ESTABLISHED RULE. IT IS UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS GRAVE WHEN IT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION OR WILFUL INTENT TO VIOLATE LAW OR DISREGARD RULES.

 

AGUIRRE MISCONDUCT

 WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

 

IT IS THE DISPOSITION TO LIE, DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD. IT IS NOT SIMPLY BAD JUDGMENT. STATE OF MIND OR INTENTION TO LIE ETC IS NECESSARY ELEMENT.

 

AGUIRRE DISHONESTY 

 

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-2019-0057-Lydia I. Aguirre Vs. Director Cecilia R. Nieto Civil Service Commission Regional Office V, Legaspi 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 2019-0056: LEDESMA D. SANCHEZ VS. ATTY. CARLITO R. INTON (A.C. NO. 12455. NOVEMBER 5, 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NOTARIAL LAW; PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION) (BRIEF TITLE: SANCHEZ VS INTON)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SANCHEZ DISPO 1.png

SANCHEZ DISPO 2.png

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT WERE THE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY NOTARY PUBLIC INTON?

 

SANCHEZ WHAT HAPPENED.png 

WHAT PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON ERRING NOTARY PUBLIC?

 

SANCHEZ PENALTY.png

 

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-2019-0056-Ledesma D. Sanchez Vs. Atty. Carlito R. Inton 

 

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 2019-0054: CRISTINA CATU-LOPEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS DEPARTMENT MANAGER III, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. NO. 217997. NOVEMBER 12, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: CRISTINA LOPEZ VS COA)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

LOPEZ DISPOS.png

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

  

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

 

COA FAILED TO PRESENT CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT THE NTA HOUSING PROJECT WAS GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT AND OVERPRICED. NOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE. THUS PETITION WAS GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED.

 

LOPEZ WHAT HAPPENED.png

 

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-2019-0054-Cristina Catu-Lopez, in her capacity as Department Manager III, Administrative Department, National Tobacco Administration Vs. Commission on Audit

 

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 2019-0053: JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR. VS. RAHIM A. ARABANI, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, AND ABDURAJI G. BAKIL, UTILITY WORKER I, BOTH FROM SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU/JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR., 4TH SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG SULU VS. RODRIGO C. RAMOS, JR., CLERK OF COURT 4TH SHRI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU/CLERK OF COURT RODRIGO C. RAMOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR. 4TH SHRI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU (A.M. NO. SCC-10-14-P/A.M. NO. SCC-10-15-P/A.M. NO. SCC-11-17, 12 NOV 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE J.) (SUBJECT/S: FINE IN LIEU OF SUSPENSION BECAUSE OF DEATH; DEATH DOES NOT PREVENT COURT FROM DECIDING WHETHER RESPONDENT IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY) (BRIEF TITLE:ARABANI VS ARABANI)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

arab dispositive.png

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

RESPONDENT RODIGO  RAMOS JR WAS FOUND GUILTY AND METED THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION OF 6 MONTHS AND ONE DAY WITHOUT PAY. SURVIVING SPOUSE PRAYED THAT PENALTY BE REDUCED TO FINE. SC REDUCED THE PENALTY TO FINE AND RENDERED THE PREVIOUS PENALTY AS MOOT.

 

arab FACT.png

 

 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-2019-0053-Judge Bensaudi A. Arabani, Jr. Vs. Rahim A. Arabani, Junior Process Server Et AL, 4th Shri’a Circuit Court, Maimbung, Sulu

 

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 2019-0052: JANICE DAY E. ALEJANDRINO AND MIRIAM M. PASETES VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 245400. 12 NOVEMBER 2019, CARANDANG) (BRIEF TITLE: ALEJANDRINO ET AL VS COA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

PASETES-DISPO.png

 

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-2019-0052-Janice Day E. Alejandrino and Miriam M. Pasetes Vs. Commission on Audit, 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 2019-0051: SOCRATES C. FERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF TALISAY VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. NO. 205389. 19 NOVEMBER 2019, INTING, J.) (SUBJECT/S: BIDDING; COA DISALLOWANCE; QUATUM MERUIT) (BRIEF TITLE: FERNANDEZ VS COA)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

fern-dispositive 1.png

fern-dispositive 2.png

fern-dispositive 3.png

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WERE THE PETITIONERS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS?

 

NO BECAUSE THEIR APPEAL WAS GIVEN DUE COURSE.

 

fern-DUE PROCESS.png 

WHAT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

 

SUCH CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT. THERE IS ARBITRARINESS. OR EXERCISE OF POWER IN A DESPOTIC MANNER.

 

fern-DISCRETION.png

  

WHAT ARE THE ALLOWED CONDITIONS FOR DIRECT CONTRACTING WITHOUT BIDDING?

 

AS FOLLOWS:

 

fern-EXCEPTIONS.png

 

POWERDEV HAS ALREADY DONE WORKS. DESPITE THE DISALLOWANCE, WILL THEY STILL BE PAID?

 

YES UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF QUANTUM MERUIT. OTHERWISE, THE CITY OF TALISAY WILL BE UNJUSTLY ENRICHED.

 

fern-QUANTUM 1

fern-QUANTUM 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-2019-0051-Socrates C. Fernandez, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Talisay Vs. Commission on Audit

 

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 2019-0050 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NORMAN ANGELES Y MIRANDA(G.R. NO. 224223. NOVEMBER 20, 2019, INTING) (SUBJECT/S: SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ONLY MEDIA REPR WAS PRESENT; NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHABU) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS NORMAN ANGELES)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

ANGELES DISPOSITIVE.png

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

 

 

THE RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAS NOT FOLLOWED. ONLY THE MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE WITNESSED THE TAKING OF INVENTORY. NO PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN. THUS THE CASE WAS DISMISSED.

 

ANGELES WHAT HAPPENED.png

 

 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-2019-0050-People of the Philippines Vs. Norman Angeles y Miranda

 

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 2019-0049 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. XANDRA SANTOS Y LITTAUA A.K.A. “XANDRA SANTOS LITTAUA” (G.R. NO. 243627. NOVEMBER 27, 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DANGEROUS DRUGS) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS XANDRA SANTOS)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SANTOS-DISPOSITIVE

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE MARKING OF THE ALLEGED DRUGS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY DONE AT THE PLACE OF ARREST NOR WAS THE INVENTORY OF THE SAME WITNESSED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDIA OR THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE.

 

SANTOS-NONCOMPLIANCE.png

 

WHO SHALL WITNESS THE CONDUCT OF INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHING?

 

SANTOS-WITNESS 1.png

SANTOS-WITNESS 2.png

  

IS THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURE SUBSTANTIVE OR JUST PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY?

 

SUBSTANTIVE BECAUSE IT IS A SAFETY PRECAUTION TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL POLICE ABUSES.

 

SANTOS-SUBSTANTIAL.png 

WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION TO FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURE?

 

WHEN THERE IS JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND WHEN THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE OBJECTS ARE PRESERVED.

 

 

SANTOS-EXCEPTIONS.png

 

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE?

 

SANTOS-EXAMPLES.png 

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-2019-0049-People of the Philippines Vs. Xandra Santos y Littaua a.k.a. “Xandra Santos Littaua”

 

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 2019-0048: MELVIN G. SAN FELIX VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (G.R. NO. 198404,  OCTOBER 14, 2019, HERNANDO, J.) SUBJECT/S: AUTHORITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ANOMALIES IN EXAMINATIONS; DISHONESTY) (BRIEF TITLE: SAN FELIX VS CSC)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

SAN FELIX - DISPOSITIVE.png

 

        SO ORDERED.

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

  

SAN FELIX STATED IN HIS PERSONAL DATA SHEET (PDS) THAT HE PASSED THE POLICE OFFICER 1 EXAMINATION. BUT IT WAS DISCOVERED IN AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION THAT SAN FELIX NEVER TOOK THE SAID EXAMINATION BUT RATHER SOMEONE TOOK THE EXAMINATION IN HIS BEHALF.  CSC FOUND HIM GUILTY OF DISHONESTY AND THUS HE WAS DISMISSED WITH FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND LEAVE CREDITS.

 

 SAN FELIX ARGUED THAT UNDER A NEW LAW, RA 8551, IT IS NPC NOT ANYMORE CSC WHO CAN CONDUCT SUCH EXAMINATION. THEREFORE CSC HAS NO LONGER JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE HIS CASE. IS HIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAS THE MANDATE TO INVESTIGATE ANOMALIES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH EXAMINATIONS.

 

SAN FELIX - CSC AUTHORITY.png

 

RULING ON DISHONESTY IN PERSONAL DATA SHEET. WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

 

SAN FELIX - DISHONESTY.png

 

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-2019-0048-Melvin G. San Felix Vs. Civil Service Commission 

 

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 NO. 2019-0047-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDUARDO LACDAN Y PEREZ @ “EDWIN” AND ROMUALDO VIERNEZA Y BONDOC @ “ULO” (G.R. NO. 208472, 14 OCT 2019, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DANGEROUS DRUGS; POSSIBLE DEFENSES) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS LACDAN ET AL.)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

LACDAN DISPOSITIVE.png  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

  

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE ILLICIT DRUG WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED. NO WITNESS FROM DOJ. IN OTHER WORDS THE RULE ON CONDUCT OF INVENTORY, MARKING AND PHOTOGRAPHING WAS NOT FOLLOWED. AND NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN WHY THE RULE WAS NOT FOLLOWED. THUS APPEAL WAS GRANTED. CASE WAS DISMISSED.

 

LACDAN INVENTORY.png

 

 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-2019-0047-People of the Philippines Vs. Eduardo Lacdan y Perez @ “Edwin” and Romualdo Vierneza y Bondoc @ “Ulo”

 

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 2019-0046:  ROWENA PADAS Y GARCIA @ “WENG” VS. PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 244327. OCTOBER 14, 2019, GESMUNDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DRUGS CASE; NO PROPER INVENTORY, MARKING AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPHS) (BRIEF TITLE: PADAS VS PEOPLE).

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WENG-DISPOSITIVE.png

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER QUESTIONS HER APPREHENSION AS ILLEGAL.CAN ILLEGALITY OF ARREST BE BROUGHT UP AT THIS STAGE?

 

NOT PROPER TO QUESTION ARREST AT THIS STAGE. ANY OBJECTION TO ARREST MUST BE MADE BEFORE SHE ENTERS PLEA. OTHERWISE, DEEMED WAIVED.

 

WENG-ARREST.png

 

WHY SHOULD THERE BE PROPER INVENTORY, MARKING AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPHS?

 

TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.

 

WENG-INVENTORY.png

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THERE WAS NO DOJ REPRESENTATIVE AND NO ELECTED OFFICIAL AT THE TIME OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY, MARKING AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM PETITIONER.

 

WENG-DOJ

 

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-2019-0046-Rowena Padas y Garcia @ “Weng” vs People 

 

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 2019-0045: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DATU ANDAL “UNSAY” AMPATUAN, JR., ET AL. (CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-09-162148-72/Q-09-162216-31/Q-10-162652-66/Q-10-163766/GL-Q-12-178638)

 

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-2019-0045-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DATU ANDAL “UNSAY” AMPATUAN, JR., 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 2019-0044: LYDIA BALMA CEDA-TUGANO VS. JERRY R. MARCELINO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, QUEZON CITY (A.M. NO. P-14-3233. OCTOBER 14, 2019)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

TUGA-DISPOSITIVE.png

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

SHERIFF MARCELINO FAILED TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT. HE ENFORCED THE WRIT ON THE DAY HE POSTED THE NOTICE TO VACATE ON THE DOOR OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

TUGA-EXEC.png

 

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-2019-0044-Lydia Balma Ceda-Tugano Vs. Jerry R. Marcelino, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Quezon 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 2019-0043: CAPT. JOMAR B. DAQUIOAG VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HADJI SALAM M. ALABAIN (G.R. NO. 228509. OCTOBER 14, 2019)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

JOMAR-DISPOSITIVE.png

 

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-2019-0043-Capt. Jomar B. Daquioag Vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Hadji Salam M. Alabain

 

 

 

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 2019-0042: FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COLON HERITAGE REALTY CORPORATION/FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CITY OF CEBU AND SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. (G.R. NO. 203754/G.R. NO. 204418. OCTOBER 15, 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE J.) (SUBJECT/S: DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

COLON-DISPOSITIVE.png

 DOCTRINES/SUBJECTS:

 

RA 9167 REQUIRES CINEMA OPERATORS TO TURN OVER TO THE FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHIPPINES OR FDCP AMUSEMENT TAXES. PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. SC INVALIDATED SUCH PROVISION. SOME CINEMA OPERATORS HAVE STILL IN THEIR POSITION WITHHELD AMUSEMENT TAXES. TO WHOM WILL THEY TURN THESE OVER? WILL FDCP RETURN THE AMUSEMENT TAXES ALREADY COLLECTED BY THEM TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS?

 

THE CINEMA OPERATORS MUST STILL TURN OVER THE MONEY COLLECTED WHEN SAID PROVISION OF LAW WAS STILL VALID TO FDCP AND NOT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. LIKEWISE, FDCP IS NOT OBLIGED TO TURN OVER THE MONEY IT ALREADY COLLECTED TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. THE REASON IS THE DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT.

 

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT?

 

IT STATES THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A STATUTE PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION  OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS AN OPERATIVE FACT AND MAY HAVE CONSEQUENCES THAT MUST NOT BE IGNORED.

 

FILM-O1

 

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-2019-0042-Film Development Council of the Phil Vs. Colon Heritage Realty Corp – Film Development Council of the Phil Vs. City of Cebu and SM Prime Holdings, Inc. 

 

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 2019-0041: RE: NEWS REPORT OF MR. JOMAR CANLAS IN THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF 8 MARCH 2016 (A.M. NO. 16-03-10-SC. OCTOBER 15, 2019, CARPIO, J.)

 

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 

CANLAS-DISPOSITIVE

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

  

IN BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF MEDIA AND AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY WHAT ARE THE RULES?

 

THERE ARE TWO RULES: THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE AND THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE.

 

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE MEANS THAT THE EVIL CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMMENT MUST BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE SUCH COMMENT BE PUNISHED.

  

CANLAS-TWO RULES.png

 

XXXXXXXX

 

 

THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE STATES THAT IF THE WORDS UTTERED CREATED A DANGEROUS TENDENCY WHICH THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT THEN SUCH UTTERANCE IS PUNISHABLE. THE EFFECT OF SUCH UTTERANCE IS TO BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED.

 

 

CANLAS-RULE 2A.png BELTRAN-SECOND RULE-TWO

 

 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-2019-0041-Re – News report of Mr. Jomar Canlas in the Manila Times issue of 8 March 2016

 

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 2019-0000: ANGEL A. ARDE VS. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA (A.C. NO. 7607. OCTOBER 15, 2019, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISBARMENT; SUSPENSION) (BRIEF TITLE: ARDE VS ATTY. DE SILVA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SILVA 02-DISPOSITIVE.png

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

  

ATTY. DE SILVA WAS SUSPENDED IN LAW PRACTICE BUT STILL CONTINUED PRACTICING LAW.  SHE MISAPPROPRIATED CLIENT’S MONEY.  THE COMPLETE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

SILVA 01-FACTS.png

 

WHAT PENALTY WAS METED TO ATTY. DE SILVA?

 

DISBARMENT.

 

SAID THE COURT:

 

SILVA 05-DISBARMENT.png

 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-2019-0040-Angel A. Arde Vs. Atty. Evangeline De Silva

 

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 2019-0039: MOISES G. CORO VS. MONTANO B. NASAYAO (G.R. NO. 235361. OCTOBER 16, 2019, INTING, J.) (SUBJECT/S: FORGERY, MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES) (BRIEF TITLE: CORO VS NASAYAO)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

CORO 01.png

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT THE DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT PURCHASING PETITIONER’S LOT WAS FORGED. BUT PETITIONER’S PROOF CONSISTS ONLY OF HIS AVERMENTS.

 

MERE AVERMENTS ARE NOT ENOUGH. PETITIONER MUST PROVE FORGERY BY CLEAR, POSITIVE AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

 

CORO 02

 

HOW DO YOU PROVE FORGERY?

 

CORO 03 - HOW TO PROVE.png

 

ARE MORAL DAMAGES PUNITIVE?

 

NO, THEY ARE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING OR MENTAL ANGUISH RESULTING FROM A WRONG.

 

CORO 04-MORAL DAMAGES.png 

 

HOW TO PROVE MORAL DAMAGES?

 

NOT BY MERE ALLEGATIONS. THERE MUST BE PROOF OF PHYSICIAL SUFFERING, MENTAL ANGUISH, FRIGHT, SERIOUS ANXIETY, BESMICHED REPUTATION, WOUNDED FEELINGS, MORAL SHOCK, SOCIAL HUMILIATION OR SIMILAR INJURY.

 

CORO 05-HOW TO PROVE MORAL.png

 

WHAT ARE EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND WHAT ARE THEIR REQUISITES?

 

CORO 06-EXEMPLARY.png

 

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-2019-0039-Moises G. Coro Vs. Montano B. Nasayao

 

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”.

Guidelines on the Live Media Coverage of the Promulgation of People of the Philippines Vs. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., et al.

 

TO READ THE GUIDELINES, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT OPEN GO TO DOWNLOAD AND THE FILE APPEARS AS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

 

SCD-2019-0038-Guidelines on the Live Media Coverage of the Promulgation of People of the Philippines Vs. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., et al. 

 

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

CASE 2019-0035: EDGAR M. RICO VS. ATTYS. JOSE R. MADRAZO, JR., ET AL. (A.C. NO. 7231. OCTOBER 1, 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NOTARIAL LAW AND RULES) (BRIEF TITLE: RICO VS ATTY MADRAZO ET AL.)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

RICO 04.png

RICO 05

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

RESPONDENT NOTARY PUBLIC RAISED THE DEFENCE THAT HE DELEGATED THE NOTARIAL WORK TO HIS SECRETARY AND THUS THE ERRORS. IS THIS DEFENSE VALID?

 

NO BECAUSE A LAWYER SHOULD NOT DELEGATE THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY TASK TO SOMEONE NOT QUALIFIED TO PERFORM IT.

 

RICO 02.png

RICO 03.png

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0035-Edgar M. Rico Vs. Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., et al. 

 

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

PHILIPPINE ECONOMY AT A GLANCE

 

POPULATION IN 2019       :         110 MILLION (PROJECTION BASED ON PREVIOUS       CENSUS)

POPULATION IN 2019 BASED ON UN ESTIMATES:         108.11M

PER UN ON PHILIPPINE POPULATION: 2019 GROWTH RATE:    1.50%,  POPULATION RANK:    13;  WORLD PERCENTAGE:     1.40%.

FOREX RATE ON 10 MAY  2019     :               USD 1 = PHP 52.248

AVERAGE FOREX RATE IN JAN  2019     :               USD 1 = PHP 52.468

AVERAGE FOREX RATE IN FEB 2019       :                USD1 = PHP 52.190

AVERAGE FOREX RATE IN MAR 2019       :                USD1 = PHP 52.413

AVERAGE FOREX RATE IN APR 2019       :                USD1 = PHP 52.112

ANNUAL INFLATION RATE IN FEB 2019     :               3.8 %

ANNUAL INFLATION RATE IN JAN 2019     :               4.4 %

DOMESTIC PRODUCT GROWTH RATE IN 2017      :               6.7%

EXPORTS IN 2018     :          USD 67.49 MILLION

IMPORTS IN 2018    :          USD 108.93 MILLION

TRADE DEFICIT IN 2018          :     USD 41.44 MILLION

EXTERNAL DEBT AS OF DEC 2018    :               USD 72.199 BILLION

EMPLOYED POPULATION 15 YRS AND ABOVE IN JAN 2018    :        70.897MILLION

EMPLOYED POPULATION 15 YRS AND ABOVE IN JAN 2019    :        72.524 MILLION

TOURIST ARRIVALS IN 1918      :             5.8 MILLION

OFW REMITTANCES IN 2017      :            USD31.28 BILION

OFW REMITTANCES IN 2018      :            USD32.20 BILION

NUMBER OF OFWs IN 2017:             2.3 MILLION

FORBES MAGAZINE’S 2019 LIST OF WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE PHILIPPINES

AND THEIR NET WORTH IN US  BILLION DOLLARS:

  1. MANUEL VILLAR Jr.   US$ 5.5B
  2. JOHN GOKONGWEI Jr.  US$ 5.1 B
  3. ENRIQUE RAZON Jr.   US$ 4.8 B
  4. LUCIO TAN  US$ 4.4 B
  5. TONY TAN CAKTIONG   US$ 3.9 B
  6. RAMON ANG   US$ 2.9 B
  7. ANDREW TAN   US$ 2.7 B
  8. HANS SY   US$ 2.4 B
  9. HERBERT SY   US$ 2.4 B
  10. HARLEY SY US$ 2.2 B
  11. HENRY SY Jr. US$ 2.2 B
  12. TERESITA SY-COSON   US$ 2.2 B
  13. ELIZABETH SY   US$ 1.9 B

TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE “BUILD, BUILD, BUILD” PROGRAM UP TO END OF THE DUTERTE ADMINISTRATION: P8 BILLION.

SPENT FOR TWO AND 1/2 YEARS FOR THE “BUILD, BUILD, BUILD” PROGAM: P1.64 BILLION.

 

TO VIEW DETAILS PLEASE CLICK THE FILE BELOW:

 

A-TSH-0108-PHILIPPINE ECONOMY AT A GLANCE

 

THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR WEBSITE.