Archive for August, 2022


SC CASE 2022-0042:CECILIA YULO LOCSIN SUBSTITUTED BY MR. LEANDRO Y. LOCSIN VS. PUERTO GALERA RESORT HOTEL, INC. ALSO REPRESENTED BY LUISITO B. PADILLA AND LUISITO B. PADILLA, IN HIS OWN CAPACITY (G.R. NO. 233678, 27 JULY 2022, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; PARTY IN INTEREST; ATTYS FEES) (BRIEF TITLE: LOCSIN VS. PUERTO GALERA RESORT)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
August 30, 2022

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS CASE INVOLVES A CLAIM BY RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES WHICH THE CA GRANTED. RESPONDENT MADE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPERTY.  PETITIONER SAID THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OF LEASE. SC SAID THERE WAS AS EVIDENCED BY SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS. PETITIONER SAID RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST. SUPREME COURT SAID HE IS BECAUSE HE INVESTED HUGE SUM IN THE RESORT OF PETITIONER.

WAS THERE A CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED?

YES BECAUSE THERE WAS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS.

IS PADILLA A PARTY IN INTEREST?

YES BECAUSE HE MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN THE RESORT AND THEREFORE A PARTY WHO WILL BE INJURED OR WILL BENEFIT IN THE CASE.

ON ATTY’S FEES:

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.

sc4f851Download

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”.

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0041: MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) VS. ABC DEVELOPMENT CORP., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY (TV5) (G.R. NO. 212670, 06 JULY 2022, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: FIGHTING WORDS, WHETHER PROTECTED OR NOT) (BRIEF TITLE: MTRCB VS TV5)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
August 20, 2022

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE TULFO BROTHERS MADE UTTERANCES AGAINST SANTIAGO. SC SAID THESE UTTERANCES, ALTHOUGH PROFANE AND BULGAR DID NOT INCITE ITS AUDIENCE TO LAWLESS ACTION.

“Thus, the Tulfo brothers’ utterances are only considered threats against Santiago. Nothing more. The utterances made by them, although profane and vulgar, did not incite its audience to lawless action that may lead to a breach of peace of the State.”

WHAT ARE FIGHTING WORDS? IS IT PROTECTED SPEECH? HOW ABOUT WORDS SPEWED OUT IN A QUARREL OR FIGHT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS ARE THEY FIGHTING WORDS? SC RULED AS FOLLOWS:

MTRCB INTENDS TO IMPOSE 3 MONTH SUSPENSION, FINE AND PROBATIONARY STATUS AGAINST THE TULFOS. SUPREME COURT SAID NO NEED. TV5′ ACT OF SELF REGULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CHARTER IS ENOUGH. TV5 CENSURED AND SUSPENDED THE TULFO BROTHERS.

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-2022-0041-movie-and-television-review-and-classfication-board-mtrcb-vs.-abc-development-corpo.-doing-business-under-the-name-and-style-associated-broadcastDownload

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”.

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0040: PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND/OR SEASPAN CREW MANAGEMENT LTD. AND/OR CARLOS SALINAS VS. ALLAN N. TENA-E (G.R. NO. 234365, 06 JULY 2022, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT: PHYSICIAN’S REPORT ON MEDICAL/PHYSICIAL CONDITION OF EMPLOYEE) (BRIEF TITLE: PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE VS TENA-E)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
August 15, 2022

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THERE WERE SEVERAL MEDICAL REPORTS. THE PHYSICIANS OF CHOICE SUBMITTED REPORTS. COMPANY PHYSICIAN DR SANEZ ALSO SUBMITTED REPORT. SUPREME COURT FAVORED THE REPORT OF DR SANES AS HE ACTUALLY TREATED RESPONDENT  AND MONITORED HIS CONDITION. RESPONDENT’S PHYSICIANS’ FINDINGS WERE BASED ONLY ON GENERAL IMPRESSIONS AFTER CONDUCTING A SINGLE EXAMINATION.

…………………………..

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-2022-0040-philippine-transmarine-carriers-inc.-and-or-seaspan-crew-management-ltd.-and-or-carlos-salinas-vs.-allan-n.-tena-eDownload

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”.

Comment