Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2019-0059: PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, INC. (G.R. NO. 236293. DECEMBER 10, 2019, PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.) (BRIEF TITLE: MALIGALIG VS SANDIGAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

mali-dispositive

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHOS IS A PUBLIC OFFICER?

 

ONE WHO BY LAW, ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT PERFORMS A PUBLIC FUNCTION. OR ONE IN WHOM A PUBLIC FUNCTION IS INVESTED TO BE EXERCISED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

 

mali-publ officer 1

mali-publ officer 2

 

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-2019-0059-Proceso L. Maligalig Vs Sandiganbayan Et Al. 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0057: CARISSA E. SANTO VS. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU (G.R. NO. 232522. AUGUST 28, 2019, LAZARO-JAVIER) (SUBJECT/S: RETIREMENT BENEFITS; HOW COMPUTED)  (BRIEF TITLE: SANTO VS UNIVERSITY OF CEBU)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

santo-dispositive

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CEBU OFFERS OPTIONAL RETIREMENT TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED AT LEAST 15 YEARS OF SERVICE. THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT IS COMPUTED AT 15 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE. SANTO, 42 YEARS OLD, APPLIED FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT BUT INSISTS THAT THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT BE COMPUTED AT 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RETIREMENT LAW. UNIVERSITY OF SEBU CONTENDED THAT RETIREMENT LAW DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SANTO IS BELOW 60 YEARS OLD AND THEIR SCHOOL MANUAL EXPRESSLY STATES THAT SUCH OPTIONAL RETIREMENT IS RESIGNATION WITH SEPARATION BENEFIT SUPREME COURT SAID SHE IS ENTILED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER THE RETIREMENT LAW BECAUSE IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THE AMBIGUITY IN THE UNIVERSITY MANUAL (WHETHER RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT) MUST BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE RETIREE. THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

 

WHAT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO BENEFICIARY MUST BE APPLIED. ART. 287 OF THE LABOR CODE IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THUS ITS COMPUTATION OF 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE MUST BE APPLIED.

 

SANTO 1

 

SANTO 2

 

SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES RETIREMENT PLANS WHICH SET THE MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE  OF EMPLOYEES BELOW 60 YEARS OLD.

 

SANTO 3

 

SUPREME COURT WILL NOT SUSTAIN A RETIREMENT CLAUSE THAT GIVES RETIREES LESS BENEFITS THAT WHAT THE LAW GUARANTEES.

  

SANTO 4

 

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-2019-0058-Carissa E. Santo Vs. University of Cebu

 

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0057: LYDIA I. AGUIRRE VS. DIRECTOR CECILIA R. NIETO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE V, LEGASPI CITY (G.R. NO. 220224. AUGUST 28, 2019, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY; MISCONDUCT) (BRIEF TITLE: AGUIRRE VS DIRECTOR NIETO OF CSC.

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

AGUIRRE DISPO 1

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER ORDERED UNIFORM EXPENSE BE DEDUCTED FROM SALARY OF ELAURZA. PETIONER ALSO HAD ALTERCATION WITH ELAURZA. PETITIONER WAS CLEARED OF THE CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT.

 

AGUIRRE FACTS

  

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT? WHEN IS IT GRAVE?

 

MISCONDUCT IS TRANSGRESSION OF SOME ESTABLISHED RULE. IT IS UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS GRAVE WHEN IT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION OR WILFUL INTENT TO VIOLATE LAW OR DISREGARD RULES.

 

AGUIRRE MISCONDUCT

 WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

 

IT IS THE DISPOSITION TO LIE, DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD. IT IS NOT SIMPLY BAD JUDGMENT. STATE OF MIND OR INTENTION TO LIE ETC IS NECESSARY ELEMENT.

 

AGUIRRE DISHONESTY 

 

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-2019-0057-Lydia I. Aguirre Vs. Director Cecilia R. Nieto Civil Service Commission Regional Office V, Legaspi City

 

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”.