J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2017-0002: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P. CABATO ET AL (A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401, 25 JAN 2017, VELASCO, JR., J. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS JUDGE CABATO ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules as follows:

1. Dominador B. Remiendo, Clerk III, Branch 7, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is hereby found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Serious Dishonesty, and is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of six (6) months without pay and other benefits during the said period, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely;

2. Manolo V. Mariano III, Utility Worker, Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Serious Dishonesty and is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of three (3) months without pay and other benefits during the said period, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely;

3. Jerico G. Gay-ya, Clerk of Court, Branch 61, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and Simple Negligence and is hereby meted the penalty of FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely;

4. The following employees are found LIABLE for Falsification of Official Document and are hereby meted the penalty of FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) each, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely:

          a.  Eduardo B. Rodrigo (Process Server, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          b.   Elizabeth M. Lockey (Court Stenographer III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          c.   Analiza G. Madronio (Court Stenographer III, Branch 59, Baguio City)

          d.   Evangeline N. Gonzales (Clerk III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          e.   Marilou M. Tadao (Court Stenographer, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          f.   Agnes P. Maca-ey (Court Stenographer, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          g.   Marani S. Bacolod (Sheriff IV, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          h.   Edgardo R. Orate (Clerk III, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

          i.   Victoria J. Derasmo (Court Stenographer III, Branch 6, R TC, Baguio City)

           j.   Rowena C. Pasag (Clerk III, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

          k.   George Henry A. Manipon (Court Interpreter III, Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

          l.   Perla B. Dela Cruz (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

          m.   Dolores M. Eserio (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

          n.   Dolores G. Romero (Clerk III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

          o.   Reynaldo R. Ramos (Clerk III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

          p.   Lourdes G. Caoili (Clerk of Court III, Branch 1, MTCC, Baguio City)

          q.   Lourdes F. Wangwang (Clerk IV, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City);

5. Ruth B. Bawayan, Clerk of Court, Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, is found LIABLE for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Simple Negligence and is hereby meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely;

6. The following employees are found LIABLE for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and are hereby meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely:

          a.   Jonathan R. Geronimo (Utility Worker, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Leo P. Valdez (Utility Worker, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Concepcion Soliven Vda. Pulmano (Clerk III, Branch 61, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Samuel P. Vidad (Clerk III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Carolyn B. Dumag (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Grace F. Desierto (Court Stenographer II, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Francisco D. Siapno (Utility Worker I, OCC, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Gilbert L. Evangelista (Utility Worker, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Ruben L. Atijera (Sheriff IV, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Romeo R. Florendo (Sheriff IV, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Mary Rose Virginia 0. Matic (Court Stenographer, Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Antino M. Wakit (Utility Worker II, Branch I, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Anita A. Mendoza (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Edna P. Castillo (Court Stenographer III, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Romeo E. Barbachano (Process Server, Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Leonila P. Fernandez (Court Stenographer III, Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Maria Esperanza N. Jacob (Process Server I, Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Melita C. Salinas (Court Interpreter III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Wilma M. Tamang (Clerk III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City);

7. The following court officials are found LIABLE for Simple Negligence and are hereby ADMONISHED, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely:

1. Judge Roberto R. Mabalot (Branch I, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Jennifer P. Humiding (Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Mia Joy C. Oallares-Cawed (Branch 4, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Mona Lisa Tiongson-Tabora (Branch 7, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Judge Antonio C. Reyes (Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Remedios Balderas-Reyes (Clerk of Court, OCC, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Alejandro Epifanio D. Guerrero (Clerk of Court, Branch 5, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Mylene May Adube-Cabuag (Clerk of Court, Branch 6, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Jessica D. Guansing ([Acting] Clerk of Court, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Roger L. Nafianog (Clerk of Court, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City);

8. The charges against the following respondents are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit:

1. Ofelia T. Mondiguing (Clerk of Court III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)/

1. Vilma P. Camit-Wayang (Clerk III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Merlin Anita N. Calica (Cash Clerk III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Edwin V. Fangonil (Process Server, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Namnama L. Lopez (Librarian II, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Restituto A. Corpuz (Court Stenographer III, Branch 3, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Marlene A. Domaoang (Court Stenographer III, Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Florence F. Salango (Legal Researcher, Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Elizabeth G. Aucena (Legal Researcher II, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Joy P. Chilem-Aguilba (Court Stenographer III, Branch 4, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Precy T. Goze (Court Stenographer, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Virginia M. Ramirez (Court Stenographer, Branch 5, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Eleonor V. Ni~alga (Court Stenographer III, Branch 60, R TC, Baguio City)

1. Angelina M. Santiago (Clerk III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Eleonor I. Bucaycay (Court Interpreter, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Sonny S. Caragay (Process Server I, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Jose E. Orpilla (Sheriff III, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Roberto G. Corona, Jr. (Process Server, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Bobby D. Galano (Sheriff IV, Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Albert G. Tolentino (Sheriff IV, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Rolando G. Montes (Clerk II, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Jeffrey G. Mendoza (Clerk III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Venus D. Saguid (Court Stenographer III, OCC, RTC, Baguio City)

1. Armando G. Y dia (Clerk of Court, OCC, MTCC, Baguio City)

1. Gail M. Bacbac-Del Isen (Clerk of Court, Branch 3, R TC, Baguio City\ and

9. Finally, the charges against Judge Antonio M. Esteves, Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City; Judge Illuminada P. Cabato, Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City; Joan G. Castillo, former Legal Researcher, Branch 61, RTC, Baguio City; and Ruth C. Lagan, former Court Stenographer III, Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City, are hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“On a final note, court personnel are reminded of their sworn duty to always act with honesty, as eloquently put by this Court in the case of Gubatanga v. Bodoy:

‘This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest employee, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service. As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, which requires the highest standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. It has been consistently stressed that even minor employees mirror the image of the courts they serve; thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice.’”

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

scd-2016-0095-office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-judge-iluminada-cabato-et-al

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 2016-0093: MARINA’S CREATION ENTERPRISES AND JERRY B. ALFONSO, VERSUS ROMEO V. ANCHETA, (G.R. NO. 218333, 07 DECEMBER 2016,  CARPIO, J) (SUBJECT/S: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL; REQUIREMENTS IF DISMISSAL IS DUE TO HEALTH REASONS; BACKPAY AND SEPARATION PAY AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RELIEFS AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEE) (BRIEF TITLE: MARINA’S CREATION VS ANCHETA)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 2 June 2014 Decision and the 4 March 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130120.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code impose upon the employer the duty not to terminate an employee until there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the employee’s disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. In this case, Marina terminated Ancheta from employment without seeking a prior certification from a competent public health authority that Ancheta’s disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. Hence, Ancheta was illegally dismissed by Marina.

Finally, the CA did not err in awarding Ancheta full backwages and separation pay. In Reyes v. R.P. Guardians Security Agency, lnc.,21 this Court held that an employee who was unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is not possible, the award of separation pay is proper.22 Notably, backwages and separation pay are separate and distinct reliefs available to Ancheta who was illegally dismissed by Marina.”

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

scd-2016-0093-marinas-creation-enterprises-case 

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 2016-0069: RICARDO DEL POSO y DELA CERNA,  V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 210810, 7 DECEMBER 2016,  PERALTA, J.) (R.A. 7610; CHILD ABUSE; WHO ARE CHILDREN; WHEN QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT VIS A VIS QUESTION OF LAW; WHEN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LACK OF MOTIVE AND PASSION/OBFUSCATION APPLIES) (BRIEF TITLE: DEL POSO VS PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated January 28, 2014 of Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna is DENIED for lack merit and the Decision dated July 22, 2013, dismissing petitioner’s appeal and affirming the Decision dated July 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Manila in Criminal Case No. 05-239429, convicting petitioner of violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A No. 7610 and imposing upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

MAY QUESTIONS OF FACT BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45?

AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, QUESTIONS OF FACT MAY BE RAISED IN A RULE 45 PETITION IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENT:

(1) WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

(2) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ON SPECULATIONS;

(3) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN;

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE CONFLICTING;

 (6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND ITS FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES;

(7) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION;

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE PETITIONER ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND

(10) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF FACT EXIST?

A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR THE FALSEHOOD OF ALLEGED FACTS.

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS?

ON THE OTHER HAND, A QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS.”

WHAT IS CHILD ABUSE?

SECTION 3 OF THE SAME LAW DEFINES CHILD ABUSE AS

3 (B) “CHILD ABUSE” REFERS TO THE MALTREATMENT, WHETHER HABITUAL OR NOT, OF THE CHILD WHICH INCLUDES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, SEXUAL ABUSE AND EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT;

(2) ANY ACT BY DEEDS OR WORDS WHICH DEBASES, DEGRADES OR DEMEANS THE INTRINSIC WORTH AND DIGNITY OF A CHILD AS A HUMAN BEING.

DEFINE CHILDREN?

THE SUBJECT STATUTE DEFINES CHILDREN AS PERSONS BELOW EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE; OR THOSE OVER THAT AGE BUT ARE UNABLE TO FULLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES OR PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION OR DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR CONDITION.13

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG. IS HE CORRECT?

NO.

SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE FACTS PROVEN SHOW THAT THERE IS A NOTABLE AND EVIDENT DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINAL ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

CAN THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION APPLY?

NO.

THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION ONLY APPLIES IF THE ACT OF THE VICTIM IS BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND.

A CHILD WHO FELL ASLEEP WHILE ATTENDING TO A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT :S NOT AN OFFENSE AT ALL AND COULD NOT GIVE RISE TO AN IMPULSE SUFFICIENT AND POWERFUL TO NATURALLY PRODUCE A JUSTIFIED DIMINUTION OF AN ADULT’S SELFCONTROL. IN THIS CASE PETITIONER BURNT THE CHILD WITH HOT IRON.

TO BE ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE [OF PASSION AND/OR OBFUSCATION THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT: (1) THERE SHOULD BE AN ACT BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND; (2) THE ACT THAT PRODUCED THE OBFUSCATION WAS NOT FAR REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BY A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME, DURING WHICH THE PERPETRATOR MIGHT RECOVER HIS NORMAL EQUANIMITY.

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

scd-2016-0091-ricardo-del-poso-y-dela-cerna-vs-people-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”.