Latest Entries »

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”.

 

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.