J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The July 12, 2012 Decision and the October 10, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93939 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award for attorney’s fees in favor of respondents-spouses Ernesto and Flora Sotelo is DELETED..

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

A PROPERTY WAS MADE COLLATERAL TO SECURE A LOAN OF P140,000.00. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS P1,750,000.00. THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED WAS A DEED OF SALE. THE CREDITOR THEN CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF NEW TITLE IN HIS NAME.  THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE TRANSACTION AS EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. THE NEW TITLE IS VOID.

As the transaction between the parties herein was demonstrated to be one of equitable mortgage, petitioner did not become owner of the subject property but a mere mortgagee thereof. As such, petitioner was bound by the prohibition against pactum commissorium as embodied in Article 2088 of the Civil Code:

Art. 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

The mortgagee’s consolidation of ownership over the mortgaged property upon the mortgagor’s mere failure to pay the obligation is the essence of pactum commissorium. 36 The mortgagor’s default does not operate to automatically vest on the mortgagee the ownership  of the encumbered property. This Court has repeatedly declared such arrangements as contrary to morals and public policy and thus void.

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:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 14, 2019 and Resolution dated July 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158220, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner RODRIGO A. UPOD is declared ILLEGALLY DISMISSED and respondent ONON TRUCKING AND MARKETING CORPORATION is ORDERED to PAY him:

1) BACKWAGES reckoned from February 2017 until finality of this Decision;

2) SEPARATION PAY equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service reckoned from 2014 until finality of this Decision;

3) 13th MONTH PAY limited to three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint; and

4) Ten percent (10%) ATTORNEY’S FEES. These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THE PETITIONER WAS PAID 16% OF GROSS REVENUES PER TRIP AND NOT PER DAY OR PER TIME BASIS. IS HE A REGULAR EMPLOYEE.

YES. SALARY ON A PER TRIP BASIS IS SIMPLY A METHOD OF COMPUTING COMPENSATION.

Two. Respondent cornp,i ny paid petitioner 16% of gross revenues per trip. The fact that petitioner ‘Nas paiJ on per trip basis does not negate the existence of an employer-employee re lationship; for the same is simply a method for computing compensalinn. One may be paid on the basis of results or time expended on the work, and may or may not acquire an employment.

PETITIONER’S SERVICES WERE SOUGHT ONLY IF THERE ARE TRIPS TO BE MADE. HE HAS BEEN WITH THE COMPANY FOR 8 YEARS. IS HE A REGULAR EMPLOYEE?

YES. BECAUSE HE HAS RENDERED AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF SERVICE WHICH MAY BE CONTINUOUS OR BROKEN.

A regular employee, therefore, is one who is either ( i) engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one ( l ) year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he or she is employed. 27

As an entjt.y engaged in the wholesale and retail of various products, respondent company must neci-~•;s.1rily engage the servic0s of delivery drivers, such as heri::.in peti6oner, for the p .!n:iose ,”}f getting its products delivered to its clients. To be S!,lre, since pi::!itioqer had perfon11ed nets necessary and desirable to respondent compa:1~/ s b usiness and trade for more than a year, his status had alre~dy ripened tG a regular employment.

THE EMPLOYER MERELY STOPPED GIVING WORK ASSIGNMENT TO PETITIONER. WILL THIS CONSTITUTE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

YES. SINCE THE EMPLOYER ADMITTED THAT IT STOPPED GIVING WORK ASSIGNMENT TO PETITIONER, THE LATTER NEED NOT PROVE HIS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

To be valid, petitioner’s dismissal should have been for just or authorized causes and only upon compliance with procedural due process. As it was, respondent company complied with neither conditions in effecting petitioner’s dismissal. It just abruptly stopped giving delivery assigmnent to petitioner in February 2017. Petitioner need not even prove the fact of his dismissal in view of respondent company’s admission that it stopped giving assignment to petitioner because allegedly, his contract already expired.

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:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 28, 2019 and September 17, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 158342 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The Judgment dated September 12, 2018 and the concomitant orders of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 24, Naga City in Criminal Case No. 2016- 0935 are VOID for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed with the criminal case against respondent Noel Sabater y Ulan with utmost dispatch.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE ACCUSED WANTED TO PLEA TO A LESSER OFFENSE (SECTION 12 IN LIEU OF SECTION 5 OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG LAW). PROSECUTOR OBJECTED. BUT COURT APPROVED THE PLEA. SUPREME COURT SAID THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IT MUST NOT APPROVE PLEA BARGAINING IF ALL PARTIES DO NOT AGREE.

Where the prosecution withholds its consent, the trial court cannot proceed to approve a plea bargain. There is no meeting of the minds, hence, there can be no plea bargaining “agreement” to speak of. Should the trial court nevertheless approve the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection, it would be doing so in grave abuse of discretion. Justice Zalameda further explained:

In choosing to respect the prosecution’s discretion to give or withhold consent, the Court is not surrende1ing any of its powers. Instead, it is an exercise of sound judicial restraint. Courts cannot forcefully insist upon any of the parties to plead in accordance with the Plea Bargaining Framework. To emphasize, when there is no unanimity between the prosecution and the defense, there is also no plea bargaining agreement to speak of. If a party refuses to enter a plea in conformity with the Plea Bargaining Framework, a court commits grave abuse of discretion should it unduly impose its will on the parties by approving a plea bargain and issuing a conviction based on the framework.

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”.