Latest Entries »

CASE 2016-0056: Re: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO G. ROSARIO. (OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, 26 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (INDIRECT CONTEMPT) (BRIEF TITLE: RE DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND INC AGAINST CA JUSTICES)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court:

 

(1) ABSOLVES and PURGES Felizardo R. Colambo, Alberto L. Buenviaje and Garry de Vera of any act of contempt of court:

 

(2) DECLARES and PRONOUNCES Joseph B. Usita, Darwin V. Dominguez and Arnel F. Hibo GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT for degrading the judicial office of respondent Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, and for obstructing and impeding the due performance of their work for the Judiciary, and, ACCORDINGLY, metes on each of Usita, Dominguez and Hibo a fine of F20,000.00, the same to be paid within 10 days from notice of this resolution.

 

AMA Land, Inc., Joseph B. Usita, Darwin V. Dominguez and Arne! F. Hibo are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

HOW WOULD THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT BE USED?

 

MUST BE USED SPARINGLY, WITH CAUTION, RESTRAINT, JUDICIOUSNESS, DELIBERATION, AND IN DUE REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

 

CAN THE CORPORATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT?

 

YES. FOR DISOBEYING JUDGMENTS, DECREES, OR ORDERS OF A COURT OR FOR COMMITTING ANY IMPROPER CONDUCT TENDING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO IMPEDE, OBSTRUCT, OR DEGRADE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

 

WHAT ARE SOME PRECEDENTS TO SERVE AS GUIDES IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT OF FINE?

 

In Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 14 the Court meted on the CO MEL EC Chairman and four COMELEC Commissioners a fine of P20,000.00 each for various actions, including issuing three resolutions that were outside of the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, for degrading the dignity of the Court, for brazen disobedience to the lawful directives of the Court, and for delaying the ultimate resolution of the many incidents of the party-list case to the prejudice of the litigants and of the country. It is notable that the Court prescribed a fine of PS,000.00 each on the two remaining Commissioners whose actions were deemed less serious in degree.

 

In Heirs of Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals,15 we imposed a fine of Pl0,000.00 on the corporate officer who had caused the preparation and filing of the unwarranted complaint for reconveyance, damages and quieting of title in the trial court, an act that tended to impede the orderly administration of justice.

 

In Lee v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85,16 the corporate officers who had acted for the corporation to frustrate the execution of the immutable judgment rendered against the corporation by a resort to various moves merited the maximum fine of F30,000.00 for each of them.

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0056-AMA LAND

 

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”.

 

 

SAMPLE FORM OF SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING TRANSACTIONS WITH SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART), DIGITEL MOBILE PHILIPPINES, INC. (DMPI/SUN) and ePLDT, INC. (ePLDT)

 

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

Makati City                               ) SS.

 

SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE

 

I, AAAAA, Corporate Secretary of XXXXX INC. organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines with office address at ___________________________, do hereby certify that the Board of Directors of said corporation has passed during their meeting held on ­­­­­­­________________ the following RESOLUTION:

 

  1. That at the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on 01 July 2016 at which meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout, the following resolutions were approved and passed:

 

“RESOLVED, that the Corporation be, as it is hereby authorized to enter into transactions and contracts with, and/or avail of products, facilities, services of or through the representation of PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT), and its wholly/partly owned subsidiaries and/or affiliates including but not limited to SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART), DIGITEL MOBILE PHILIPPINES, INC. (DMPI/SUN) and ePLDT, INC. (ePLDT) (hereinafter referred to individually or collectively as the “PLDT Group” for purposes of these resolutions) , including but not limited to wire-line telephone, wireline data, wireline internet, wireless telephone, wireless data service, SMS, GPRS, wireless value added services, wireless broadband internet, and other  present or future product, facilities and services of the PLDT Group, as the Corporation’s authorized signatories may deem reasonable, proper and beneficial for the interest of the Corporation;

 

“RESOLVED, FURTHER, that any _______ of the following Officers and/or Directors of the Corporation whose specimen signatures appear below be, as they are hereby authorized to sign, execute and/or deliver any and all documents, contracts, instruments for and in behalf of the Corporation, as may be appropriate and required by the foregoing transactions authorized above:

 

Name                 Position Signature

 

BBBBB               Chairman      ___________________

 

“RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the foregoing authorized signatories be, as they are hereby authorized to transmit their instructions from time to time via letter correspondence, electronic mail, telecopier (facsimile), and phone in connection with the exercise of the foregoing powers in accordance with which the PLDT Group shall be entitled but not bound to rely and act upon such communications which it believes to be in good faith to be signed and authorized or apparently signed and/or authorized by the authorized signatories of the Corporation; and

 

“RESOLVED, finally, that the Corporate Secretary be, and is hereby, authorized to issue certifications covering the foregoing resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.”

 

  1. The foregoing resolutions have not been revoked, amended, or in any manner modified and, accordingly, the same may be relied upon until a written notice to the contrary is issued by the Corporation.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th day of ­­­­­­_____________________ at ____________________.

 

 

 

 

       AAAAA                             

 Corporate Secretary

 

ATTESTED BY:

 

                               CCCCC

                               President

 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this  ______________ at _____________, AAAAA  exhibiting to me his/her TIN ID bearing ________________.

 

Doc. No.  ______;

Page No. ______;

Book No. ______;

Series of  ______.

 

CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS –  RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dat.ed September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for the reasons above-explained. A new one is ENTERED DISJ\r1ISSIN G the Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad’ng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE?

 

IT INVOLVES NINE (9) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1 ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015 OF THE COURT (DECEMBER 8, 2015 DECISION), WHICH UPHELD WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION3 DATED MAY 17, 2013 AND THE RESOLUTION4 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013.

 

HOW DID THE SC RESOLVE THESE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION?

 

SC GRANTED THESE MOTIONS.

 

ON WHAT MAIN GROUND?

 

ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS.

 

THESE CASES STEMMED FROM RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN. THE WRIT BEING SOUGHT WAS MOOTED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE BIOSAFETY PERMITS ISSUED BY BUREAU OF PLANT INDISTRY  AND THE COMPLETION OF THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS. THERE IS NO MORE FIELD TEST TO ENJOIN.

 

ALSO, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE GAINED BY RESOLVING RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN.

 

WHAT CONTROVERSIES CAN THE COURT ADJUDICATE?

 

AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY ACTUAL, ONGOING CONTROVERSIES. THIS RULE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS.


WHEN A CASE IS MOOT, IT BECOMES NON-JUSTICIABLE.

 

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE?

 

YES.

 

FIRST, WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;

 

SECOND, WHEN THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE SITUATION AND THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOLVED;

 

THIRD, WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED REQUIRES FORMULATION OF CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC;

 

AND FOURTH, WHEN THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW.

 

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

 

SCD-2016-0055-INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

 

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”.