J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2019-0020: MARILYN MEIM M. VDA. DE ATIENZA, COMPLAINANT, – VERSUS – PALERMO I. AGUILAR, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, SAN JOSE,OCCIDENTAL MINDORO (A.M. NO. P-19-3988, 24 AUGUST 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DUTIES OF SHERIFF) (BRIEF TITLE: ATIENZA VS AGUILAR)

 DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, respondent Palermo I. Aguilar, Sheriff IV of theOffice of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, OccidentalMindoro, is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. In lieu of suspension, he is FINED in the amount equivalent to his salary for one ( 1) month, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or any similar act shallbe dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records of respondent Aguilar in the Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

DOES SHERIFF HAVE  DISCRETION ON HOW TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES?

NO. HIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS NOT MERELY DIRECTORY BUT MANDATORY.

It must be emphasized anew that the above-quoted provisions leave no room for any exercise of discretion on the part of the sheriff on how to perform his or her duties in implementing the writ. A sheriffs compliance with the Rules is not merely directory but mandatory.20 It is well settled that a sheriffs functions are purely ministerial, not discretionary.21 Once a writ is placed in his hand, it becomes his duty to proceed with reasonable speed to enforce the writ to the letter, ensuring at all times that the implementation of the judgment is not unjustifiably deferred, unless the execution of which is restrained by the court. 22 Additionally, even if the writs are unsatisfied or only partially satisfied, sheriffs must still file the reports so that the court, as well as the litigants, may be informed of the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ. Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the efficiency of court processes after promulgation of judgment. Over all, the purpose of periodic reporting is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions. 23

Thus, from the foregoing, it is then apparent that Aguilar violated the provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the duties of sheriffs in the implementation of court writs and processes. He failed to observe the procedure in order to ensure the proper administration of justice, and rules which he is presumed to know by heart. The long intervals of time from the service of the writ on the accused cannot be said to be a full and prompt discharge of his responsibility for the speedy and efficient execution of the court’s judgment. It must be stressed that a judgment, if not executed, would be an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party. It is said that execution is the fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law. 24 It is also indisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with this delicate task must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decisions, orders, or other processes of the courts of justice would be futile. 25

WHY DO SHERIFFS PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE WRIT OF EXECUTION?

BECAUSE IF THE DECISIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED, JUDGEMENTS ARE EMPTY VICTORIES.

Sheriffs, being agents of the court, play an important role, particularly in the matter of implementing the writ of execution. Indeed, [sheriffs] “are tasked to execute final judgments of courts. If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories of the prevailing parties. They must, therefore, comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court’ writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.”26

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

SCD-2019-0020-MARILYN MEIM M. VDA. DE ATIENZA VS PALERMO I. AGUILAR (A.M. No. P-19-3988, 24 AUGUST 2019)

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”.

CASE 2019-0018: MAUNLAD TRANS, INC.; UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., SEACHEST ASSOCIATES; CARNIVAL CORPORATION; AND/OR RONALD MANALIGOD, PETITIONERS, V. ROMEO RODELAS, JR., RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 225705, 01 APRIL 2019, DEL CASTILLO) (SUBJECT/S: DISABILITY BENEFITS) (BRIEF TITLE: MAUNLAD TRANS VS RODELAS)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The April 29, 2015 Decision and July 8, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130412 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING respondent Romeo Rodelas, Jr. entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00 only, equivalent to Grade 8 disability under the POEA Contract. The original award of attorney’s fees in respondent’s favor is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NOTE: IN THIS CASE, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO UNDERGO 120/240 DAY PERIODS FOR TREATMENT, THUS VIOLATING HIS CONTRACT AND THE LAW.

RESPONDENT REFUSED TO UNDERGO THE 120/240 TREATMENT. CAN HE STILL BE ENTITLED TO PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY?

NO, BECAUSE BY NOT UNDERGOING SUCH TREATMENT, HE VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT AND THE LAW.

The fact that respondent was not re-hired by petitioners has no bearing, considering that the former violated his contract and the law. Simply put, respondent may not be rewarded – for violating the law and his contract – with a grant of permanent and total disability benefits. This would set a wrong precedent for others to follow. While the Court looks at the cause of labor with a compassionate eye, it must not necessarily turn blind and completely ignore the rights of the employer; the law and justice should always prevail.

As for the argument that even surgery is not a guarantee that respondent’s condition will return to normal, this does not entitle him to the indemnity he seeks; the fact remains that he violated his contract and the law. His infraction erased any benefit he may have derived from such argument; besides, while this is a medical opinion shared by the company-designated physician, the Court is free to rely on it or discard it altogether.

WHY SHOULD RESPONDENT UNDERGO THE 120/240 PERIODS FOR TREATMENT?

SO HIS EMPLOYER WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST HIM IN FINDING A CURE FOR HIS CONDITION AND THUS MINIMIZE ANY LEGAL AND PECUNIARY LIABILITY IT MAY BE HELD ANSWERABLE FOR.

Without the seafarer undergoing the prescribed 120/240-day periods for treatment, his employer is deprived of the opportunity to assist him in finding a cure for his condition and thus minimize any legal and pecuniary liability it may be held answerable for. At the same time, there is no way of assessing the seafarer’s medical condition with finality; without this assessment, no corresponding indemnity is forthcoming – understandably. That is why the seafarer must subject himself to treatment as prescribed by the law and the standard POEA contract; this requirement is patently for his benefit in all respects.

CAN HE STILL AVAIL OF ANY BENEFIT?

YES. HE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO OR COMMENSURATE WITH HIS INJURY.

Thus, consistent with the ruling in the C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta case cited above, it must be held that respondent is entitled only to compensation equivalent to or commensurate with his injury. In the absence of an opinion from a physician of his own choice, or a third one as the case may be, respondent must abide by the findings of the company-designated physician, which in this case remains unrefuted precisely since respondent plainly abandoned his treatment. The Grade 8 assessment of the company-designated physician therefore stands, and for this, respondent is entitled only to the equivalent monetary benefit of US$16,795.00 pursuant to the schedule of disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.

IS RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

NO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THIS LABOR CASE.

On the issue of attorney’s fees, the Court finds that, since there was no ground for the institution of the instant labor case to begin with, respondent has no right to demand the payment of such fees. As was held in Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. v. Penales,^[12]

Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney’s fees can be recovered ‘when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.’ Considering the above pronouncements, this Court sees no reason why damages or attorney’s fees should be awarded to Penales. It is obvious that he did not give the petitioners’ company-designated physician ample time to assess and evaluate his condition, or to treat him properly for that matter. The petitioners had a valid reason for refusing to pay his claims, especially when they were complying with the terms of the POEA SEC with regard to his allowances and treatment.

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

SC-2019-0018-G.R. NO. 225705 – MAUNLAD TRANS, INC ET AL VS ROMEO RODELAS, JR – 01 APRIL 2019 

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”.

CASE 2019-0017: ROLANDO D. CORTEZ, PETITIONER, V. LUZ G. CORTEZ, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 224638, 10 APRIL 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE; PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY) (BRIEF TITLE: CORTEZ VS CORTEZ)

 DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated November 5, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100062 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER WAS NOT LOVING RESPONDENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IS THIS A MANIFESTATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

IT IS NOT. MERE “DIFFICULTY,” “REFUSAL,” OR “NEGLECT” IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OR “ILL WILL” ON THE PART OF THE SPOUSE IS DIFFERENT FROM “INCAPACITY” ROOTED ON SOME DEBILITATING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION OR ILLNESS.

PETITIONER  HAS NO INTENTION IN THE BEGINNING TO DO THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF A HUSBAND AND FATHER. IS THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

IT IS NOT. MERE “DIFFICULTY,” “REFUSAL,” OR “NEGLECT” IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OR “ILL WILL” ON THE PART OF THE SPOUSE IS DIFFERENT FROM “INCAPACITY” ROOTED ON SOME DEBILITATING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION OR ILLNESS.

PETITIONER LACKED REALIZATION THAT HE HAS MARITAL OBLIGATION TO PERFORM AS HUSBAND TO RESPONDENT. IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

IT IS NOT. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES IS A MENTAL ILLNESS THAT LEADS TO AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH OR COMPREHEND ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ON WHETHER PETITIONER WAS PSYCHOLOGICALL INCAPACITATED TO PERFORM MARITAL OBLIGATIONS:

Thus, the antecedence can be traced to his rearing and family environment making him a person with dependency inclination and passive-aggressive in traits. As said, his psychological incapacity stems from his traits and his not loving the respondent from the very beginning. That is where gravity comes in as that is obviously, solid evidence, that he, from the beginning had no intentions whatsoever to do the duties and obligations of a husband and a father.^[25]

We find that the report failed to show how petitioner’s personality traits incapacitated him from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. On the contrary, the report established that because petitioner was forced to marry respondent without love, he had no intention to do his full obligations as a husband. Mere “difficulty,” “refusal,” or “neglect” in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is different from “incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness.^[26]

Notably, petitioner admitted that it was only when he learned in 1994 that respondent had a child prior to their marriage in 1990 that he stopped giving support to respondent and their two children; that because of the abandonment case filed against him and the threats coming from respondent’s brothers if he would stop supporting respondent and the children that he entered into a compromise agreement with respondent regarding the financial support for their children; that despite giving support, however, he refused to live with respondent. Petitioner’s showing of ill-will and refusal to perform marital obligations do not amount to psychological incapacity on his part.

Petitioner’s claim of lack of realization that he has marital obligation to perform as husband to respondent is not a consideration under Article 36 of the Family Code as what the law requires is a mental illness that leads to an inability to comply with or comprehend essential marital obligations.^[27]

We, likewise, agree with the CA’s and the RTC’s findings that respondent was not shown to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations. As the CA found, respondent was shown to be a caring wife and a loving mother to her children. The findings and conclusions made by Dr. Soriano that respondent did not have the mind, will and heart to perform the obligations of marriage as she did not show concern for petitioner and was just contented to get money from the latter cannot be given credence. There was no other basis for Dr. Soriano to arrive at such finding other than the information supplied by petitioner. To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse’s psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side is not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.^[28] Moreover, such finding was contradicted by respondent’s letters^[29] to petitioner which were attached to petitioner’s Reply filed with the RTC where she wrote how much she wished for petitioner’s good health and safety; that the money she received from petitioner’s allotment was used to pay for the house rental, children’s education and other incidental expenses; that she would like to save money to buy a house for the future of their children; and that she asked for forgiveness for nagging him because of jealousy and that she still loves him. Respondent had shown that she is capable of fulfilling her marital obligations and that she valued her marriage as she even opposed the petition for annulment of her marriage and participated in the trial of the case.

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

SC-2019-0017-G.R. No. 224638-10 APRIL 2019-ROLANDO CORTEZ VS LUZ G. CORTEZ

 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”.