Archive for April, 2020


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”.