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.

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”.

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.

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”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENT WAS REPATRIATED DUE TO HIS AILMENT WHICH MADE HIM . PETITIONER SAID RESPONDENT WAS REPATRIATED BECAUSE HIS CONTRACT EXPIRED. SUPREME COURT SAID PETITIONER WAS WRONG BECAUSE WHY WOULD PETITIONER RECOMMEND THAT RESPONDENT UNDERGO MEDICAL EXAMINATION IF HIS CONTRACT ALREADY EXPIRED. FURTHER, COMPANY PHYSICIAN DECLARED HIM WITH DISABILITY. SINCE PHYSICIAN FAILED WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD TO DECLARE WHETHER THE DISABILITY WAS PERMANENT AND TOTAL THE SAME IS PRESUMED TO BE PERMANENT AND TOTAL.

SUPREME COURT ADJUSTED THE BENEFITS DUE RESPONDENT OTHERWISE IT WOULD RESULT TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

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.

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”.