J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0006: IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4TH PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)  (A.M. NO. RTJ-16-2452, 29 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY; GRAVE MISCONDUCT; PERJURY) (BRIEF TITLE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE CONTRERAS)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, Judge Jaime E. Contreras is hereby found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and is SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year without pay, to take effect upon the finality hereof, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HOW JUDGE SHOULD CONDUCT ONESELF

“Time and time again, this Court has stressed that “the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.”15 “As visible representation of the law, respondent judge should have conducted himself in a manner which would merit the respect of the people to him in particular and to the Judiciary in general.”16

DISHONESTY AND CORRESPONDING PENALTY

Dishonesty is considered a grave offense. It carries the maximum penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

In OCA v. Judge Aguilar, 17 however, this Court refrained from imposing the maximum penalty based on several factors attendant to the case. The Court held:

Nonetheless, Rule IV, Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules also provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. Among the circumstances that may be allowed to modify the penalty are ( 1) length of service in the government, (2) good faith, and (3) other analogous circumstances.

In several jurisprudential precedents, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the determination by the Court of the imposable penalty. x x x.18”

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

 SCD-2016-0006-JUDGE CONTRERAS

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 2016-0005: RAPPLER, INC. VS. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA (G.R. NO. 222702, 5 APRIL 2016, CARPIO J.) (SUBJECT/S: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS; LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHTS) (BRIEF TITLE: RAPPLER INC. VS. BAUTISTA)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. Respondent Andres D. Bautista, as Chairman of the COMELEC, is directed to implement Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which allows the debates to be shown or live streamed unaltered on petitioner’s and other websites subject to the copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated. Due to the time constraint, this Resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CRUCIAL PROVISIONS IN THE MOA ENTERED INTO BY COMELEC CHAIRMAN BAUTISTA AND PETITIONER AND OTHER MEDIA ENTITIES?

“Under the MOA, the Lead Networks are mandated to promote the debates for maximum audience.

The MOA recognizes the public function of the debates and the need for the widest possible dissemination of the debates.

The MOA has not reserved or withheld the reproduction of the debates to the public but has in fact expressly allowed the reproduction of the debates “subject to copyright conditions.

CAN PETITIONER LIVE STREAM THE DEBATE IN ITS ENTIRETY?

YES BY COMPLYING WITH THE COPYRIGHT CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

THE SOURCE IS CLEARLY INDICATED.

THERE WILL BE NO ALTERATION, WHICH MEANS THAT THE STREAMING WILL INCLUDE THE PROPRIETARY GRAPHICS USED BY THE LEAD NETWORKS.

IF PETITIONER OPTS FOR A CLEAN FEED WITHOUT THE PROPRIETARY GRAPHICS USED BY THE LEAD NETWORKS, IN ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO LAYER ITS OWN PROPRIETARY GRAPHICS AND TEXT ON THE SAME, THEN PETITIONER WILL HAVE TO NEGOTIATE SEPARATELY WITH THE LEAD NETWORKS.

SIMILARLY, IF PETITIONER WANTS TO ALTER THE DEBATE AUDIO BY DELETING THE ADVERTISEMENTS, PETITIONER WILL ALSO HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE LEAD NETWORKS.

WHAT IS THE PROVISION OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE PERTINENT  TO THIS CASE?

SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright. – 184. l Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

xx xx

(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved; Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49) (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISION WHAT ARE THE COPYRIGHT CONDITIONS FOR THE DEBATES?

“…….(1) the reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of the debates is for information purposes; (2) the debates have not been expressly reserved by the Lead Networks (copyright holders); and (3) the source is clearly indicated.

Once the conditions imposed under Section 184.1 (c ) of the IPC are complied with, the information – in this case the live audio of the debates now forms part of the public domain. There is now freedom of the press to report or publicly disseminate the live audio of the debates. In fact, the MOA recognizes the right of other mass media entities, not parties to the MOA, to reproduce the debates subject only to the same copyright conditions. The freedom of the press to report and disseminate the live audio of the debates, subject to compliance with Section 184. l (c ) of the IPC, can no longer be infringed or subject to prior restraint. Such freedom of the press to report and disseminate the live audio of the debates is now protected and guaranteed under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that “[N]o law shall be passed abridging the freedom xx x of the press.”

WHY SHOULD THE DEBATES BE ALLOWED TO BE SHOWN ON STREAMED IN OTHER WEBSITES?

 “The presidential and vice-presidential debates are held primarily for the benefit of the electorate to assist the electorate in making informed choices on election day. Through the conduct of the national debates among presidential and vice-presidential candidates, the electorate will have the “opportunity to be informed of the candidates’ qualifications and track record, platforms and programs, and their answers to significant issues of national concern.” 10 The poli°tical nature of the national debates and the public’s interest in the wide availability of the information for the voters’ education certainly justify allowing the debates to be shown or streamed in other websites for wider dissemination, in accordance with the MOA.”

Therefore, the debates should be allowed to be live streamed on other websites, including petitioner’s, as expressly mandated in Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA. The respondent, as representative of the COMELEC which provides over-all supervision under the MOA, including the power to “resolve issues that may arise among the parties involved in the organization of the debates,”11 should be directed by this Court to implement Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which allows the debates to be shown or live streamed unaltered on petitioner’s and other websites subject to the copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.”

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

SCD-2016-0005-RAPPLER VS BAUTISTA

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 2016-0004: JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO VS. CRISANTO P. USON (G.R. NO. 198967, 07 MARCH 2016, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION; OFFICERS AND COMPANIES NOT IMPLEADED IN LABOR CASE CAN BE HELD LIABLE TO WORKERS) (BRIEF TITLE: GUILLERMO VS. USON)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 8, 2011 and Resolution dated October 7, 2011 in CAG.R. SP No. 115485 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

GUILLERMO ASSERTS THAT HE WAS IMPLEADED IN THE CASE ONLY MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER ITS DECISION HAD BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. BUT IN THE EXECUTION STAGE HE WAS INCLUDED AS JUDGMENT OBLIGOR. IS THIS PROPER?

YES. LIABILITY ATTACHED, ESPECIALLY TO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS, EVEN AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT AND DURING EXECUTION, WHEN THERE WAS A FAILURE TO COLLECT FROM THE EMPLOYER CORPORATION THE JUDGMENT DEBT AWARDED TO ITS WORKERS.

IN THIS CASE GUILLERMO IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE IN THE ACTUAL RUNNING OF THE COMPANY AND FOR THE MALICIOUS AND ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINANT; HE, LIKEWISE, WAS SHOWN TO HAVE A ROLE IN DISSOLVING THE ORIGINAL OBLIGOR COMPANY IN AN OBVIOUS “SCHEME TO AVOID LIABILITY”

“In the earlier labor cases of Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations43 and A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC,44 persons who were not originally impleaded in the case were, even during execution, held to be solidarily liable with the employer corporation for the latter’s unpaid obligations to complainant-employees.”

CAN ANOTHER CORPORATION NOT IMPLEADED BE MADE A JUDGMENT OBLIGOR IN A LABOR CASE?

YES IF IT IS A MERE CONDUIT OR ALTER EGO OF THE ORIGINALLY IMPLEADED CORPORATION, AND/OR THE OFFICERS OR STOCKHOLDERS OF THE LATTER CORPORATION.

“The common thread running among the aforementioned cases, however, is that the veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but related corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment and on execution, so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so. When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and opprobriously elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment. The key element is the presence of fraud, malice or bad faith. Bad faith, in this instance, does not connote bad judgment or negligence but impo1is a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.61”

WHEN DOES PERSONAL LIABILITY ATTACH?

PERSONAL LIABILITY ATTACHES ONLY WHEN, AS ENUMERATED BY THE SAID SECTION 31 OF THE CORPORATION CODE, THERE IS A WILFULL AND KNOWING ASSENT TO PATENTLY UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE CORPORATION, THERE IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR BAD FAITH IN DIRECTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION, OR THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST RESULTING IN DAMAGES TO THE CORPORATION.

WHEN DOES THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IS HELD TO APPLY?

IN THREE (3) BASIC AREAS, NAMELY: ( 1) DEFEAT OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AS WHEN THE CORPORATE FICTION IS USED AS A VEHICLE FOR THE EVASION OF AN EXISTING OBLIGATION; (2) FRAUD CASES OR WHEN THE CORPORATE ENTITY IS USED TO JUSTIFY A WRONG, PROTECT FRAUD, OR DEFEND A CRIME; OR (3) ALTER EGO CASES, WHERE A CORPORATION IS MERELY A FARCE SINCE IT IS A MERE ALTER EGO OR BUSINESS CONDUIT OF A PERSON, OR WHERE THE CORPORATION IS SO ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED AND ITS AFFAIRS ARE SO CONDUCTED AS TO MAKE IT MERELY AN INSTRUMENTALITY, AGENCY, CONDUIT OR ADJUNCT OF ANOTHER CORPORATION.

IN A CASE WHERE THE CORPORATE VEIL IS PIERCED, ARE ALL THE OFFICERS PERSONALLY LIABLE?

ONLY THE “RESPONSIBLE OFFICER,” I.E., THE PERSON DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WHO “ACTED IN BAD FAITH” IN COMMITTING THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OR ANY ACT VIOLATIVE OF THE LABOR CODE

IN A CLOSE CORPORATION, WHO IS PERSONALLY LIABLE?

IT IS THE PERSON ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATION.

WHEN WILL CORPORATE FICTION BE DISREGARDED?

THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE ON WHEN CORPORATE FICTION MAY BE DISREGARDED; INSTEAD, EACH CASE MUST BE EVALUATED ACCORDING TO ITS PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

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

SCD-2016-0004-GUILLERMO

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”.