Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


SC CASE 2022-0034: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL VS. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 207078, 20 JUNE 2020, LEONEN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: ANTI MONEY LAUNDERING; GOVT MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE TO CONNECT THE MONEY TO THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY) (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS ONGPIN ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
July 30, 2022

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS INVOLVE COVERED OR SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS. GOVERNMENT MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THESE ACCOUNTS ARE RELATED TO THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. IN THIS CASE THE GOVT FAILED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE.

WHAT ARE COVERED TRANSACTIONS? SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS?

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-2022-0034-republic-of-the-philippines-represented-by-the-anti-money-laundering-council-vs.-roberto-v.-ongpin-et-al.Download

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”.

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0033: TONY N. CHUA, JIMMY N. CHUA, AND ERNEST T. JENG VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (G.R. NO. 214960, 15 JUNE 2022, HERNANDO, J.) SUBJECT/S: TRUST RECEIPTS LAW; NOVATION) (BRIEF TITLE: CHUA ET AL VS SECR OF JUSTICE ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
July 27, 2022

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS ENTERED INTO TRUST RECEIPT AGREEMENT WITH BDO. A NEW AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT. PETITIONERS CLAIM THEY CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF ESTAFA UNDER THE OLD AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY NOVATED OR SUPERSEDED BY A NEW AGREEMENT. SUPREME COURT SAID THERE IS NO NOVATION. THE NEW SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT IS MERELY SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION.

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-2022-0033-tony-n.-chua-jimmy-n.-chua-and-ernest-t.-jeng-vs.-secretary-of-justice-and-bdo-unibank-inc.Download

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”.

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0032: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY VS. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (G.R. NO. 231238, 20 JUNE 2022, LEONEN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW AT COURT OF TAX APPEALS; PRESCRIPTION) (BRIEF TITLE: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT VS BIR)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
July 24, 2022

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE CAN STILL BE APPEALED TO THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF WHOSE DECISION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. THE IMPRESSION IS THAT THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE IS THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF. THE 30 DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW AT CTA STARTS FROM RECEIPT OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER, NOT FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE.

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-2022-0032-light-rail-transit-authority-vs.-bureau-of-internal-revenue-represented-by-the-commissioner-of-internal-revenueDownload

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”.

Comment