Archive for June, 2018


CASE 2018-0011: ESTRELLITA TADEO-MATIAS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 230751. APRIL 25, 2018) (SUBJECT/S: COURT DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH NOT A REQUIREMENT IN CLAIMING DEATH BENEFITS OF DECEASED AFP PERSONNEL) (BRIEF TITLE: TADEO-MATIAS VS REPUBLIC)

 

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

 

SCD-2018-0011-Estrellita Tadeo-Matias, Vs. Republic of the Philippines 

 

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 2018-0010: PABLO C. HIDALGO VS SONIA VELASCO (G.R. No. 202217, 25 APRIL 2018, MARTIRES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTIONAL RECITALS IN UNLAWFUL  DETAINER CASE) (BRIEF TITLE: HIDALGO VS VELASCO)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

  

“WHEREFORE, the· petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 6 March 2012 and the Resolution dated 31 May 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120649 are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 WHAT MUST BE ALLEGED IN AN ILLEGAL DETAINER CASE?

 

“…. In Cabrera v. Getaruela,36 the Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:

 

  1. 1hat initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
  2. That eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
  3. That thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
  4. That within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.37

 

These averments are jurisdictional and must appear on the face of the complaint.”

 

 IS THIS CASE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE?

 

NO. IT FAILS TO ALLEGE THE FIRST AND SECOND RECITALS.

 

“As demonstrable on its face, the subject complaint fails to aver, at the very least, the first and the second recitals. We thus agree with the R TC and the CA that it fails to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an action for unlawful detainer, following which, the MCTC could not exercise jurisdiction over it.

 

Incidentally, we agree with the appellate court that the recitals in the complaint are more in tune with those in a complaint for forcible entry.”

 

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

 

SCD-2018-0010-Pablo C. Hidalgo Vs. Sonia Velasco

 

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 2018-0009: UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST AND DR. ESTER GARCIA, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS VERONICA M. MASANGKAY AND GERTRUDO R. REGONDOLA (G.R. NO. 226727, 25 APRIL 2018, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS IN LABOR CASES) (BRIEF TITLE: UE VS MASANGKAY ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 19, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 132774 and its August 26, 2016 Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

ARE WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS INVALID AS THESE ARE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY?

 

NOT ALL.

 

“Thus, not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. 24

 

In the case at bar, We find no reason to rule that respondents did not waive their right to contest UE’s decision. Based on their actuations subsequent to their termination, it is clear that they were amenable to UE’s decision of terminating their services on the ground of academic dishonesty. Nowhere can we find any indication of unwillingness or lack of cooperation on respondents’ part with regard to the events that transpired so as to convince Us that they were indeed constrained to forego their right to question the management’s decision. Neither do we find any sign of coercion nor intimidation, subtle or otherwise, which could have farced them to simp1y accept said decision. In fact, based on their qualifications, this Court cannot say that respondents and UE do not stand on equal footing so as to force respondents to simply yield to UE’s decision. Furthermore, there is no showing that respondents did not receive or received less than what is legally due them in said termination.”

 

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

 

SCD-2018-0009-University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia

 

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”.