Archive for October, 2016


CASE 2016-0068: SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARA VILLO, JR., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS HEIRS OF BENJAMIN * MALANCE, NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALAN CE, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 219071, 24 AUGUST 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (CONTRACT OF ANTICHRESIS) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES REYES ET AL VS. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
October 9, 2016

CASE 2016-0068: SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARA VILLO, JR., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS HEIRS OF BENJAMIN * MALANCE, NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALAN CE, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 219071, 24 AUGUST 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (CONTRACT OF ANTICHRESIS) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES REYES ET AL VS. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 23, 2013 and the Resolution dated June 18, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95984 are hereby MODIFIED: (a) declaring that the unpaid loan balance of Benjamin Malance’s (Benjamin) to petitioners Charito M. Reyes and Vilma M. Maravillo (the Magtalas sisters) is ?273,648.93 as herein computed; (b) dismissing the counterclaim of petitioners the Magtalas sisters and their respective husbands, Roberto Reyes and Domingo Maravillo, Jr., on the ground of prematurity, without prejudice; and (c) directing the Magtalas sisters, as antichretic creditors, to henceforth render an annual accounting to respondents Heirs of Benjamin Malance, namely: Rosalina M. Malance, Bernabe M. Malance, Bienvenido M. Malance, and Dominga M. Malance, as represented by Bienvenido Malance, of the annual net yield from the subject land, until such time that they have completely collected the outstanding loan balance of Benjamin’s debt.


SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“The Court, however, concurs with the RTC’s finding, as affirmed by the CA, that the Kasulatan is a contract of antichresis. Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2132. By the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor, with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit.

 

Thus, antichresis involves an express agreement between parties whereby : (a) the creditor will have possession of the debtor’s real property given as security; (b) such creditor will apply the fruits of the said property to the interest owed by the debtor, if any, then to the principal amount;53 (c) the creditor retains enjoyment of such property until the debtor has totally paid what he owes;54 and (d) should the obligation be duly paid, then the contract is automatically extinguished proceeding from the accessory character of the agreement. 55

 

Bearing these elements in mind, the evidence on record shows that the parties intended to enter into a contract of antichresis. . . . .

 

As antichretic creditors, the Magtalas sisters are entitled to retain enjoyment of the subject land until the debt has been totally paid.

 

………

 

The debt not having been totally paid, petitioners are entitled to retain enjoyment of the subject land. Consequently, the Malance heirs’ complaint for recovery of possession, declaration of nullity of the Kasulatan, and damages against petitioners must be dismissed.

 

As a final matter for resolution, the Court likewise dismisses petitioners’ counterclaim for the payment of Benjamin’s principal debt, including interest, considering that the same was not yet due and demandable at the time the claim therefor was filed.”

 

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

 

scd-2016-0068-spouses-reyes

 

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”.

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0067: MARCELINO T. TAMIN VS. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR MASTERBULK PTE. LTD. (G.R. 220608, 31 AUGUST 2016, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS; THE 120/240 RULE; WHAT IS PERMANENT DISABILITY; WHAT IS TOTAL DISABILITY) (BRIEF TITLE: TAMIN VS MAGSAYSAY MARITIME ET AL).

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
October 5, 2016

CASE 2016-0067: MARCELINO T. TAMIN VS. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR MASTERBULK PTE. LTD. (G.R. 220608, 31 AUGUST 2016, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS; THE 120/240 RULE; WHAT IS  PERMANENT DISABILITY; WHAT IS TOTAL DISABILITY) (BRIEF TITLE: TAMIN VS MAGSAYSAY MARITIME ET AL).

 
DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 25, 2015 Decision and September 18, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137055 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of the Panel of . Voluntary Arbitrators in AC-305-NCMB-NCR-001-01-01-2014 is hereby REINSTATED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

THERE IS A RULE THAT IN CASE OF CLAIM FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN MUST ISSUE A REPORT WITHIN 120 DAYS EXTENDIBLE TO 240 DAYS. IN THIS CASE THIS RULE WAS NOT FOLLOWED. RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT THIS RULE DOES NOT APPLY ANYMORE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW POEA-SEC PROVIDES THAT DISABILITY IS NOT DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF INABILITY TO WORK BUT ON DISABILITY GRADINGS ALONE. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

 NO. IT MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OR REPORT OF THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WAS COMPLETE, VALID  AND ISSUED ON TIME WHICH IS WITHIN 120 DAYS EXTENDIBLE TO 240 DAYS. IN THIS CASE THE REPORT OF THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 240 DAYS.

 

JURISPRUDENCE IS REPLETE WITH CASES WHERE THE COURT  STRUCK DOWN A COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN’S DISABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR BEING BELATEDLY ISSUED, INSUFFICIENT, OR DUE TO LACK OF FINALITY.

 

BUT THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE POEA-SEC PROVISIONS?

 

THE POEA-SEC PROVISIONS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ON DISABILITY OF THE LABOR CODE, AND THE AMENDED RULES ON EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION (AREC) IMPLEMENTING TITLE II, BOOK IV OF THE LABOR CODE.

 

WHAT IS PERMANENT DISABILITY?

 

PERMANENT DISABILITY IS THE INABILITY OF A WORKER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER JOB FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A WORKER LOSES THE USE OF ANY PART OF HIS OR HER BODY.

 

WHAT IS TOTAL DISABILITY?

 

TOTAL DISABILITY, ON THE OTHER HAND, MEANS THE DISABLEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO EARN WAGES IN THE SAME KIND OF WORK OR WORK OF SIMILAR NATURE THAT HE OR SHE WAS TRAINED FOR, OR ACCUSTOMED TO PERFORM, OR ANY KIND OF WORK WHICH A PERSON OF HIS OR HER MENTALITY AND ATTAINMENTS COULD DO.29


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

 

scd-2016-0067-marcelino-t-tamin

 

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”.

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0066: TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., COMPLAINANT -VERSUS – ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, RESPONDENTS. (A.C. NO. 9090, 31 AUG 2016, PEREZ, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRUZ VS. ATTY. REYES ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
October 3, 2016

CASE 2016-0066: TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., COMPLAINANT -VERSUS – ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, RESPONDENTS. (A.C. NO. 9090, 31 AUG 2016, PEREZ, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRUZ VS. ATTY. REYES ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated 22 August 2012 is hereby modified in that respondent Atty. John G. Reyes is REPRIMANDED for his failure to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of the legal profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be said that respondent has no liability at all under the circumstances. His folly, though, consists in his negligence in accepting the subject cases without first being fully apprised of and evaluating the circumstances surrounding them. We, nevertheless, agree with respondent that such negligence is not of contumacious proportions as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension. This Court finds the penalty of suspension for one ( 1) year earlier imposed on respondent too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed. “The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.”42 The penalty to be meted out on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion taking into consideration the facts surrounding each case.43

 

In this connection, the following circumstances should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate respondent’s responsibility: first respondent exhibited enough candor to admit that he was negligent and remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the request of another lawyer to handle a case without being first apprised of the details and acquainted with the circumstances relative thereto; and second, since this is his first offense, respondent “is entitled to some measure of forbearance. “44

 

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

 

scd-2016-0066-atty-john-g-reyes

 

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”.

 

 

Comment