J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0049: RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, WIGBERTO E. TANADA, FRANCISCO “DODONG” NEMENZO, JR., SR. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, PACIFICO A. AGABIN, ESTEBAN “STEVE’: SALONGA, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., EVALYN G. URSUA, EDRE U. OLALIA, DR. CAROL PAGADUANARAULLO, DR. ROLAND SIMBULAN, and TEDDY CASINO,  v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, and ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA,  (G.R. 212426)

 BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES NERI J. COLMENARES, and  CARLOS ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES LUZ ILAGAN AND EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDO HICAP, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TERRY RIDON, MAKABA YANG KOALISYON NG MAMAMA YAN (MAKABAYAN), REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO OCAMPO, and LIZA MAZA, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, RAFAEL MARIANO, SALVADOR FRANCE, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, and CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY PIO LORENZO BATINO, AMBASSADOR LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE, AMBASSADOR J. EDUARDO MALAYA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDERSECRETARY FRANCISCO BARAAN III, and DND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS RAYMUND JOSE QUILOP AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE NEGOTIATING PANEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES ON EDCA, (G.R. No. 212444)

 KILUSANG MA YO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER LABOG, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT FERDINAND GAITE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MA YO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOSELITO USTAREZ, NENITA GONZAGA, VIOLETA ESPIRITU, VIRGINIA FLORES, and ARMANDO TEODORO, JR.,( G.R. Nos. 212426 & 212444) 

 (26 July 2016, SERENO, CJ.) (MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE EDCA) (BRIEF TITLE: SAGUISAG ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.

 SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

To recall, the Philippines and the U.S. entered into the MDT in 195157 with two things in mind, first, it allowed for mutual assistance in maintaining and developing their individual and collective capacities to resist an armed attack;58 and second, it provided for their mutual self-defense in the event of an armed attack against the ten-itory of either party.59 The treaty was premised on their recognition that an anned attack on either of them would equally be a threat to the security of the other.

The EDCA embodies this very purpose. It puts into greater effect a treaty entered into more than 50 years ago in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the Philippines, and cement the military friendship of the U.S. and Philippines that has thrived for decades through multiple presidents and multiple treaties. While it is a fact that our country is now independent, and that the 1987 Constitution requires Senate consent for foreign military bases, troops, and facilities, the EDCA as envisioned by the executive and as formulated falls within the legal regime of the MDT and the VF A.

In the context of recent developments, the President is bound to defend the EEZ of the Philippines and ensure its vast maritime wealth for the exclusive enjoyment of Filipinos. In this light, he is obligated to equip himself with all resources within his power to command. With the MDT and VFA as a blueprint and guide, EDCA strengthens the Armed Forces of the Philippines and through them, the President’s ability to respond to any potential military crisis with sufficient haste and greater strength.

The Republic of Indonesia is strengthening its military presence and defences in the South China Sea.61 Vietnam has lent its voice in support of the settlement of disputes by peaceful means62 but still strongly asserts its sovereignty over the Paracel islands against China. 63 The international community has given its voice in support of the tribunal’s decision in the UN CLOS arbitration. 64

Despite all this, China has rejected the ruling.65 Its ships have continued to drive off Filipino fishermen from areas within the Philippines’ EEZ. 66 Its military officials have promised to continue its artificial islandbuilding in the contested areas despite the ruling against these activities.67

In this light, the Philippines must continue to ensure its ability to prevent any military aggression that violates its sovereign rights. Whether the threat is internal or external is a ·matter for the proper authorities to decide. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has declared, in his inaugural speech, that the threats pervading society are many: corruption, crime, drugs, and the breakdown of law and order. 68 He has stated that the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and inten1ational obligations. 69 He has also openly supported EDCA’s continuation.70

Thus, we find no reason for EDCA to be declared unconstitutional. It fully conforms to the Philippines’ legal regime through the MDT and VFA. It also fully conforms to the government’s continued policy to enhance our military capability in the face of various military and humanitarian issues that may arise. This Motion for Reconsideration has not raised any additional legal arguments that warrant revisiting the Decision.  

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

SCD-2016-0049-EDCA

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 2016-0048: CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC. v. EDWIN J. BABIANO and EMMA B. CONCEPCION, (G.R. 220978, 05 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CENTURY PROPERTIES VS. BABIANO ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated April 8, 2015 and the Resolution dated October 12, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132953 are hereby MODIFIED in that the commissions of respondent Edwin J. Babiano are deemed FORFEITED. The rest of the CA Decision stands.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 As a general rule, a party who has not appealed cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than the one granted in the appealed decision. However, jurisprudence admits an exception to the said rule, such as when strict adherence thereto shall result in the impairment of the substantive rights of the parties concerned.

………………………………………………….

In the present case, the CA aptly pointed out that the NLRC failed to account for all the unpaid commissions due to Concepcion for the period of August 9, 2008 to August 8, 201l.73 Indeed, Concepcion’s right to her earned commissions is a substantive right which cannot be impaired by an erroneous computation of what she really is entitled to. Hence, following the dictates of equity and in order to arrive at a complete and just resolution of the case, and avoid a piecemeal dispensation of justice over the same, the CA correctly recomputed Concepcion’ s . unpaid commissions, notwithstanding her failure to seek a review of the NLRC’s computation of the same.

In sum, the Court thus holds that the commissions of Babiano were properly forfeited for violating the “C91}fidentiality of Documents and NonCompete Clause.” On the other hand, CPI remains liable for the unpaid commissions of Concepcion in the sum of P591,953.05.

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

SCD-2016-0048-CENTURY PROPERTIES

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 2016-0046:  G.R. NO. 220598 – GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, PETITIONER,  -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN  RESPONDENTS; G.R. NO. 220953: BENIGNO B. AGUAS, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENT (19 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ARROYO AND AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners’ respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”

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

 SCD-2016-0046-PRES. ARROYOSCD-2016-0046-PRES. ARROYO

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”.