J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2014-0039: LITO CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 180016, 29 APRIL 2014, PERALTA, J.) SUBJECT/S: ESTAFA; PENALTIES IMPOSED ON CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY BASED ON AMOUNT OF DAMAGE; JUDICIAL LEGISLATION. (BRIEF TITLE: CORPUZ VS. PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS of prision correccional, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum.  

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice.

Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

SO ORDERED.”

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

SCD-2014-0039-APR 2014-CORPUZ

CASE 2014-0038: AURELIO M. UMALI, PETITIONER, -VERSUS – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JULIUS CESAR V. VERGARA, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CABANATUAN, RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO. 203974); J.V. BAUTISTA, PETITIONER -VERSUS – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 204371) (VELASCO, JR., J., 22 APRIL 2014) (BRIEF TITLE: UMALI VS. COMELEC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 203974, is hereby GRANTED. COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0797 dated September 11, 2012 and Minute Resolution No. 12-0925 dated October 16, 2012 are hereby declared NULL and VOID. Public respondent COMELEC is hereby enjoined from implementing the said Resolutions. Additionally, COMELEC is hereby ordered to conduct a plebiscite for the purpose of converting Cabanatuan City into a Highly Urbanized City to be participated in by the qualified registered voters of Nueva Ecij a within 120 days from the finality of this Decision. The Petition for Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 204371, is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

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

SCD-2014-0038-APR 2014-UMALI

CASE 2014-0037: ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUT- MISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G. AL MAZAR, Petitioners, -versus – PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent. (G.R. No. 192571, 22 APRIL 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) SUBJECT/S: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (BRIEF TITLE: ABBOT LABORATORIES ET AL VS. ALCARAZ)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration dated August 23, 2013 of the Court’s Decision dated July 23, 2013 in this case is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

RESPONDENT ALCARAZ ARGUES THAT SC SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED EVIDENCE BUT ONLY CONSIDERED  QUESTIONS OF LAW. SC SHOULD ONLY HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT CA PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IS HER CONTENTION CORRECT?

YES. BUT SC FOLLOWED SUCH RULE. IT FOUND OUT THAT CA COMMITTED ERROR IN HOLDING THAT NLRC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION CONSIDERING THAT NLRC DISREGARDED THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE WHICH SHOW THAT ALCARAZ WAS APPRISED OF TWO THINGS: FIRST, WHAT HER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE AND SECOND, HER STATUS AS PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. BY FAILURE TO PERFORM HER DUTIES, SHE FAILED TO MEET THE STANDARDS MADE KNOWN TO HER AT THE TIME OF HER EMPLOYMENT. (NOTE: IN OTHER WORDS, SC STILL DEALT WITH QUESTION OF LAW WHICH IS: WHETHER THE RIGHT LEGAL VIEW OF WHAT THE “STANDARDS” SHOULD BE  WAS  APPLIED IN EVALUATING THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES.)

WHAT IS MEANT BY FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS MADE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF HIRING WHICH CONSTITUTES GROUND FOR NON-REGULARIZATION?

IT CAN MEAN THAT AT THE TIME OF HIRING THE EMPLOYEE IS INFORMED OF HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND HE FAILED TO PERFORM THEM.

(NOTE: IN THIS CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE CONCEPT OF STANDARDS IS GENERALIZED. MERE FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES MEANS NOT MEETING STANDARDS. ALSO, IT IS INTERESTING TO CONSIDER THAT   IN THE CASE OF REGULAR EMPLOYEES, MERE FAILURE TO PERFORM IS NOT NECESSARILY GROUND FOR DISMISSAL SINCE THE JUST GROUNDS ARE SPECIFIC. IN THE CASE OF PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, MERE FAILURE TO PERFORM MEANS DISMISSAL (OR NON-REGULARIZATION) FOR FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS. THIS  APPEARS TO BE THE NEW CLARIFICATION ESTABLISHED IN THIS THIS RULING.)

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

SCD-2014-0037-APR 2014-ABBOT LAB