Category: Uncategorized


CASE 2016-0048: CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC. v. EDWIN J. BABIANO and EMMA B. CONCEPCION, (G.R. 220978, 05 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CENTURY PROPERTIES VS. BABIANO ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — Leave a comment
August 5, 2016

CASE 2016-0048: CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC. v. EDWIN J. BABIANO and EMMA B. CONCEPCION, (G.R. 220978, 05 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CENTURY PROPERTIES VS. BABIANO ET AL)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated April 8, 2015 and the Resolution dated October 12, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132953 are hereby MODIFIED in that the commissions of respondent Edwin J. Babiano are deemed FORFEITED. The rest of the CA Decision stands.

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 As a general rule, a party who has not appealed cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than the one granted in the appealed decision. However, jurisprudence admits an exception to the said rule, such as when strict adherence thereto shall result in the impairment of the substantive rights of the parties concerned.

 

………………………………………………….

 

In the present case, the CA aptly pointed out that the NLRC failed to account for all the unpaid commissions due to Concepcion for the period of August 9, 2008 to August 8, 201l.73 Indeed, Concepcion’s right to her earned commissions is a substantive right which cannot be impaired by an erroneous computation of what she really is entitled to. Hence, following the dictates of equity and in order to arrive at a complete and just resolution of the case, and avoid a piecemeal dispensation of justice over the same, the CA correctly recomputed Concepcion’ s . unpaid commissions, notwithstanding her failure to seek a review of the NLRC’s computation of the same.

 

In sum, the Court thus holds that the commissions of Babiano were properly forfeited for violating the “C91}fidentiality of Documents and NonCompete Clause.” On the other hand, CPI remains liable for the unpaid commissions of Concepcion in the sum of P591,953.05.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0048-CENTURY PROPERTIES

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0047: JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (G.R. 213847, 12 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; BAIL) (BRIEF TITLE: ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
August 1, 2016

CASE 2016-0047: JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (G.R. 213847, 12 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; BAIL) (BRIEF TITLE: ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:                                                          

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

 

 SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Bail exists to ensure society’s interest in having the accused answer to a criminal prosecution without unduly restricting his or her liberty and without ignoring the accused’s right to be presumed innocent. It does not perform the function of preventing or licensing the commission of a crime. The notion that bail is required to punish a person accused of crime is, therefore, fundamentally misplaced. Indeed, the practice of admission to bail is not a device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is found convenient to give them a trial. The spirit of the procedure is rather to enable them to stay out of jail until a trial with all the safeguards has found and adjudged them guilty. Unless permitted this conditional privilege, the individuals wrongly accused could be punished by the period or imprisonment they undergo while awaiting trial, and even handicap them in consulting counsel, searching for evidence and witnesses, and preparing a defense. Hence, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in pretrial liberty and society’s interest in assuring his presence at trial.”

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


“Admission to bail always involves the risk that the accused will take flight. This is the reason precisely why the probability or the improbability of flight is an important factor to be taken into consideration in granting or denying bail, even in capital cases. The exception to the fundamental right to bail should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution. Apparently, an accused’s official and social standing and his other personal circumstances arc considered and appreciated as tending to render his flight improbable.”


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


“The petitioner has proven with more than sufficient evidence that he would not be a flight risk. For one, his advanced age and fragile state of health have minimized the likelihood that he would make himself scarce and escape from the jurisdiction of our courts. The testimony of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales, Director of the Philippine General Hospital, showed that the petitioner was a geriatric patient suffering from various medical conditions, 16 which, singly or collectively, could pose significant risks to his life. The medical findings and opinions have” been uncontested by the Prosecution even in their present Motion for Reconsideration.”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0047-ENRILE

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0046: G.R. NO. 220598 – GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN RESPONDENTS; G.R. NO. 220953: BENIGNO B. AGUAS, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENT (19 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ARROYO AND AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — 2 Comments
July 26, 2016

CASE 2016-0046:  G.R. NO. 220598 – GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, PETITIONER,  -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN  RESPONDENTS; G.R. NO. 220953: BENIGNO B. AGUAS, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENT (19 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ARROYO AND AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)

                               

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners’ respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 SCD-2016-0046-PRES. ARROYOSCD-2016-0046-PRES. ARROYO

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment