CASE 2020-0013: SPOUSES AGERICO ABROGAR AND CARMELITA ABROGAR VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 221046. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE CAN BE USED TO IMPLORE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF RULES) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES ABROGAR VS LAND BANK)

DISPOSITIVE:

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS OBTAINED LOAN FROM LAND BANK. IT DEFAULTED. TO AVOID FORECLOSURE PETITIONERS FILED A CASE IN RTC TO ENJOIN LAND BANK TO ALLOW THEM TO SETTLE. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE. PETITIONERS APPEALED TO CA BY WAY OF CERTIORARI. CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF WRONG APPEAL. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE APPEAL AND NOT CERTIORARI. PETITIONERS SEEKS LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE THE MISTAKE WAS DUE TO THEIR LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE. SC SAID PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEIR LAWYER ACTED WITH MALICE AND THUS THEY CANNOT AVAIL OF THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE WITH REGARD’S TO LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE?

THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT.

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

YES, WHEN THE RECKLESS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL DEPRIVES THE CLIENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LWAS BUT COUNSEL’S ERROR MUST BE SO PALPABLE AND MALICIOUSLY EXERCISED THAT IT WOULD VIABLY BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

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-2020-0013-Spouses Agerico Abrogar and Carmelita Abrogar Vs. Land Bank of the Philippines 

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 2020-0011: PRIME STARS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION CORPORATION AND RICHARD U. PERALTA VS. NORLY M. BAYBAYAN AND MICHELLE V. BELTRAN (G.R. NO. 213961. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: RESIGNATION CONTRADICTED BY FILING COMPLAINT; NO DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS IN OFW EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY DOLE; RECRUITER SOLIDARILY LIABLE) (BRIEF TITLE: PRIME STARS ET AL VS BAYBAYAN ET AL.)

 DISPOSITIVE:

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT RESPONDENT BELTRAN VOLUNTARILY PRE-TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BY SIGNING A MUTUAL CONTRACT ANNULMENT AGREEMENT. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO BECAUSE THIS THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AT NLRC IS INCONSISTENT WITH RESIGNATION.

PETITIONER SAID THAT SINCE THEY ALREADY PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF RESIGNATION THE BURDEN OF PROOF NOW LIES WITH BELTRAN. IS THIS CORRECT?

NO, THE BURDEN IS WITH THE EMPLOYER STILL. THE ALLEGED RESIGNATION IS AMBIGUOUS AND DOUBTFUL.

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT  RESPONDENTS SIGNED AN ADDENDUM WHICH ALTERED THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY POEA. THEREFORE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE ADDENDUM. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO BECAUSE THE LABOR CODE AND POEA RULES PROHIBIT DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS AND  ALTERATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS APPROVED BY DOLE.

IS THE RECRUITER, PRIME STARS, LIABLE?

YES. UNDER R.A. 8042 THE RECRUITER IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE  FOREIGN EMPLOYER.

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-2020-0011-Prime Stars International Promotion Corporation and Richard U. Peralta Vs. Norly M. Baybayan and Michelle V. Beltran

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 2020-0010: MICHAEL ADRIANO CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 228572. JANUARY 27, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORP.)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER FILED HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA FROM AN NLRC DECISION SUSTAINING THE LABOR’S ARBITER DECISION FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE. IN HIS PETITION, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MALICE OR BAD FAITH, HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. CA SUSTAINED NLRC. PETITIONER FILED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. CA DENIED SAID MOTION IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS FILED LATE COUNTING FROM DATE THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF CA.  SUPREME COURT SAID THE COUNTING OF THE APPEAL PERIOD MUST BE BASED ON THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF C.A. THUS SC REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CA FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

WHY SHOULD THE DATE BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED COPY OF NOTICE AND NOT FROM DATE PARTY RECEIVED COPY?

BECAUSE THE PARTIES GENERALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR MECHANICS OF AN APPEAL OR AVAILMENT OF LEGAL REMEDIES.

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-2020-0010-Michael Adriano Calleon Vs. HZSC Realty Corporation, 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”.