DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

CHAN GRANTED A PERMIT TO HOLD COCKFIGHTS IN FAVOR OF LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY WHICH IS PROHIBITED FROM HAVING INTEREST IN ANY COCKPIT OPERATION.

………………………….

(NOTE: IT SOMEHOW APPEARS THAT CHAN ONLY CERTIFIED THAT A PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE SB IN FAVOR OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY. THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE SB NOT BY MAYOR CHAN? THE DECISION MIGHT BE WORTH REVISITING?)

CHAN ARGUED THAT SHE HAD NO INTENT TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE CHARGED. SC SAID CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY IN MALA PROHIBITA CASES.

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?

THIS CASE INVOLVES A CLAIM BY RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES WHICH THE CA GRANTED. RESPONDENT MADE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPERTY.  PETITIONER SAID THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OF LEASE. SC SAID THERE WAS AS EVIDENCED BY SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS. PETITIONER SAID RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST. SUPREME COURT SAID HE IS BECAUSE HE INVESTED HUGE SUM IN THE RESORT OF PETITIONER.

WAS THERE A CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED?

YES BECAUSE THERE WAS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS.

IS PADILLA A PARTY IN INTEREST?

YES BECAUSE HE MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN THE RESORT AND THEREFORE A PARTY WHO WILL BE INJURED OR WILL BENEFIT IN THE CASE.

ON ATTY’S FEES:

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?

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”.