J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2018-0009: UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST AND DR. ESTER GARCIA, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS VERONICA M. MASANGKAY AND GERTRUDO R. REGONDOLA (G.R. NO. 226727, 25 APRIL 2018, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS IN LABOR CASES) (BRIEF TITLE: UE VS MASANGKAY ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 19, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 132774 and its August 26, 2016 Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ARE WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS INVALID AS THESE ARE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY?

NOT ALL.

“Thus, not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. 24

In the case at bar, We find no reason to rule that respondents did not waive their right to contest UE’s decision. Based on their actuations subsequent to their termination, it is clear that they were amenable to UE’s decision of terminating their services on the ground of academic dishonesty. Nowhere can we find any indication of unwillingness or lack of cooperation on respondents’ part with regard to the events that transpired so as to convince Us that they were indeed constrained to forego their right to question the management’s decision. Neither do we find any sign of coercion nor intimidation, subtle or otherwise, which could have farced them to simp1y accept said decision. In fact, based on their qualifications, this Court cannot say that respondents and UE do not stand on equal footing so as to force respondents to simply yield to UE’s decision. Furthermore, there is no showing that respondents did not receive or received less than what is legally due them in said termination.”

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

SCD-2018-0009-University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia

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 2018-0008: REY NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG VS. HON. CONCHITA C. CARPIO MORALES IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.,

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

 SCD-2018-0008-Rey Nathaniel C Ifurung Vs Hon. Conchita C Carpio Morales et al

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 2018-0007: SULTAN CAWAL P. MANGONDAYA  [HADJI ABDULLATIF] VS. NAGA AMPASO (G.R. NO. G.R. NO. 201763, 21 MARCH 2018, JARDELIZA J.) (BRIEF TITLE: SULTAN MANGONDAYA VS AMPASO)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition IN PART and SET ASIDE the Orders dated dated January 31, 2011, January 16, 2012, and March 23, 2012 of the Shari’a District Court. Civil Case No. 206-10 is REMANDED to the Shari’ a District Court for further proceedings and trial on the merits. The Shari’a District Court is ordered to resolve Civil Case No. 206-10 with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE PARTIES’ PLEADINGS WITHOUT CONDUCTING PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL?

NO.

To recall, no pre-trial was conducted in this case. While the pre-trial conference was set and rescheduled for various reasons at least four times, 49 none was conducted. Rather than conducting a pre-trial in order to clarify and define the issues and proceeding with the trial as both parties had wanted, the SDC dismissed the case. Worse, the SDC’s second and third assailed Orders dated January 16, 2012 and March 23, 2012, dismissing the complaint only summarized the parties’ contending arguments; they were bereft of any discussion on the factual and legal basis for the dismissal itself.

Indeed, it was erroneous for the SDC to peremptorily conclude, on the basis of the parties’ pleadings and their attachments, that petitioner failed to prove his claim over the land, that prescription and laches have set in, and that the ‘dda, assuming it exists, is contrary to the Constitution, laws and public policy. Had the SDC proceeded with the pre-trial and trial of the case, the parties would have had the opportunity to define and clarify the issues and matters to be resolved, present all their available evidence, both documentary and testimonial, and cross-examine, test and dispel each other’s evidence. The SDC would, in tum, have the opportunity to carefully weigh, evaluate, and scrutinize them and have such sufficient evidence on which to anchor its factual findings. What appears to have happened though is a cursory determination of facts and termination of the case without the conduct of full-blown proceedings before the SDC.. . . .”

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

SCD-2018-0007-Sultan Cawal P. Mangondaya Abdullatif Vs. Naga Ampaso 

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”.