Category: GLOBAL ECONOMICS


CASE 2016-0084: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS BIYAN MOHAMMAD Y ASDORI A.K.A. “BONG BIYAN” AND MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, ACCUSED, MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, (G.R. NO. 213221, 09 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: STRICT COMPLIANCE ON THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IS NOT REQUIRED IN DRUG CASES) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS MOHAMMAD ET AL)

Filed under: GLOBAL ECONOMICS — Leave a comment
November 30, 2016

 CASE 2016-0084: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS BIYAN MOHAMMAD Y ASDORI A.K.A. “BONG BIYAN” AND MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, ACCUSED, MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, (G.R. NO. 213221, 09 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: STRICT COMPLIANCE ON THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IS NOT REQUIRED IN DRUG CASES) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS MOHAMMAD ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The April 30, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01131, which affirmed the October 16, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 13, finding accused-appellant Mina Ladjahasan y Tombreo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused appellant.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Moreover, it has been consistently held that strict compliance on the chain of custody rule is not required and that the arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The most important factor in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.9 Here, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty and prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs (and drug paraphernalia) presented to the trial court as evidence are the same items confiscated from the accused, tested and found to be positive for dangerous substance.”

 

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

 

scd-2016-0084-people-of-the-philippines-vs-biyan-mohammad-y-asdori-a-k-a-bong-biyan-and-mina-ladjahasan-y-tombreo

 

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 2016-0063: NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, V. MISAMIS ORIENTAL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., (G.R. 195138 , 24 AUGUST 2016, SERENO, CJ:) (SUBJECT/S: FINDINGS OF ADMIN BODIES ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT; CONTRACT PREVAILS AGAINST UNJUST ENRICHMENT ARGUMENT) (BRIEF TITLE: NTC VS. MORESCO)

Filed under: GLOBAL ECONOMICS — Leave a comment
September 30, 2016

CASE 2016-0063: NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION,  V. MISAMIS ORIENTAL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,  (G.R. 195138  , 24 AUGUST 2016, SERENO, CJ:) (SUBJECT/S: FINDINGS OF ADMIN BODIES ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT; CONTRACT PREVAILS AGAINST UNJUST ENRICHMENT ARGUMENT) (BRIEF TITLE: NTC VS. MORESCO)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER INSTALLED NEW ELECTRIC METER FOR RESPONDENT. PETITIONER THOUGHT  IT INSTALLED AN ELECTRIC METER WITH 5,250 MULTIPLIER. BUT WHAT IT INSTALLED WAS ACTUALLY ONE WITH 3,500 MULTIPLIER. WHEN PETITIONER MADE ADDITIONAL BILLING TO RESPONDENT BASED ON A 5,250 MULTIPLIER, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO PAY. PETITIONER FILED CASE AT ERC WHICH RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT OF THE PARTIES. CA ALSO RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT. WAS THE RULING OF ERC CORRECT?

 

YES.

 

IT IS A WELL-ENTRENCHED RULE THAT “BY REASON OF THE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OVER MATTERS FALLING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, THEY ARE IN A BETTER POSITION TO PASS JUDGMENT THEREON; THU~ THEIR FINDINGS OF FACT IN THAT REGARD ARE GENERALLY ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT, IF NOT FINALITY, BY THE COURTS.”29 THIS RULE HOLDS TRUE ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE.
 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE UNJUSTLY  ENRICHED AT THEIR EXPENSE. IS THIS ARGUMENT?


NO. BECAUSE A CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING THEREFROM HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MUST BE COMPLIED WITH IN GOOD FAITH.35

 

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

 

scd-2016-0063-misamis-oriental-1-coop-inc 

 

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 2016-0026: PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, -VERSUS CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO (G.R. NO. 195728, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.); CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO –VERSUS PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 211329, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.) (SUBJECT/S: THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT; MULTIPLICITY OF SUIT; MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE; HEIRARCHY OF COURTS; FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER VIS A VIS FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL) (BRIEF TITLE: PARAMOUNT INSURANCE VS C.T. CASTRO ET AL).

Filed under: GLOBAL ECONOMICS, Uncategorized — Leave a comment
June 8, 2016

CASE 2016-0026: PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, -VERSUS CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO (G.R. NO. 195728, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.); CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO –VERSUS PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 211329, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.) (SUBJECT/S: THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT; MULTIPLICITY OF SUIT; MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE; HEIRARCHY OF COURTS; FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER VIS A VIS FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL) (BRIEF TITLE: PARAMOUNT INSURANCE VS C.T. CASTRO ET AL).

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE PETITIONS IN G.R. NOS. 195728 AND 211329 ARE DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.”                                                                            

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS?

 

VIRGILIO OBTAINED HOUSING LOAN FROM PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.

 

SAID BANK REQUIRED VIRGILIO TO GET MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE FROM PARAMOUNT INSURANCE.

 

THE POLICY STATES THAT PARAMOUNT INSURANCE SHALL PAY DIRECTLY PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK IN CASE VIRGILIO IS UNABLE TO PAY THE LOAN AS WHEN HE DIES.

 

VIRGILIO DIED.

 

PARAMOUNT FILED CASE TO ANNUL INSURANCE BECAUSE OF VIRGILIO’S MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF AN AILMENT.

 

HEIRS OF VIRGILIO FILED MOTION TO IMPLEAD PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.

 

PARAMOUNT INSURANCE OPPOSED MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE INVOLVES ONLY NULLIFICATION OF POLICY AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.

 

IS PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

BECAUSE SHOULD PARAMOUNT SUCCEED IN HAVING THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NULLIFIED, THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK SHALL THEN PROCEED AGAINST THE CASTROS. THIS WOULD CONTRADICT THE PROVISIONS OF THE GROUP INSURANCE POLICY THAT ENSURE THE DIRECT PAYMENT BY THE INSURER TO THE BANK.

 

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT?

 

TO AVOID CIRCUITRY OF ACTION AND UNNECESSARY PROLIFERATION OF LAWSUITS, AS WELL AS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DISPOSE OF THE ENTIRE SUBJECT MATTER ARISING FROM ONE PARTICULAR SET OF FACTS, IN ONE LITIGATION.

 

WHEN IS A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT VALID?

 

THE SOUNDNESS OF ADMITTING A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT HINGES ON CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF IN HIS COMPLAINT AND A CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION, INDEMNITY OR OTHER RELIEF OF THE DEFENDANT AGAINST THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

 

ACCORDING TO PARAMAOUNT, A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT IS PROPER ONLY IF THE THIRD PARTY CAN RAISE SAME DEFENSES AS THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT. IT THIS CORRECT?

 

NO THE THIRD PARTY’S DEFENSES ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANT. THE THIRD PARTY  CAN ALSO DIRECTLY ATTACK THE PLAINTIFF, NOT ONLY THE DEFENDANT.

 

WHAT IS A MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE?

 

IT IS A DEVISE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOTH MORTGAGEE AND MORTGAGOR.

 

HOW DOES IT PROTECT THE MORTGAGEE?

 

ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGEE, THE LOAN IT EXTENDED WILL BE PAID BY THE INSURANCE. 

 

HOW DOES IT PROTECT THE MORTGAGOR?

 

ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGOR, THE  MORTGAGE WILL BE EXTINGUISHED SO HIS/HER HEIRS WILL NO LONGER BE OBLIGED TO PAY THE DEBT.

 

 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER AND FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL?

 

FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER RESULTS TO ORDER OF DEFAULT ALLOWING COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT BASED ON PLEADINGS.

 

FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL RESULTS TO ORDER OF DEFAULT ALLOWING  THE OTHER PARTY  TO PRESENT EVIDENCE EX-PARTE.

 

HEIRS OF VIRGILIO FILED MOTION TO DISMISS. RTC DENIED THE MOTION. VIRGILIO FILED APPEALED TO SC UNDER RULE 45. IS THIS PROPER?

 

NO.

 

THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE CASE.

 

BUT EVEN IF THEY FILED AT THE SC A PETITION UNDE RULE 65, IT STILL MUST BE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS. THEY MUST HAVE FILED FIRST THE PETITION WITH THE CA.

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0026-PARAMOUNT INSURANCE

 

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