Latest Entries »

CASE 2018-0018: RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018 IN G.R. NO. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO) (A.M. NO. 18-06-01-SC. JULY 17, 2018, TIJAM, J.)

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Maria Lourde A. Sereno is found guilty of violating CANON 13, Rule 13.02, and CANON 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Sections 3, 7, and 8 of CANON 1, Sections 1 and 2 of CANON 2, Sections 2 and 4 of CANON 3, and Sections 2 and 6 of CANON 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Thereby, after deep reflection and deliberation,in lieu of suspension, respondent is meted the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense or any offense violative of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit a heavier penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.

 

This judgment is final and executory. No further motions for reconsideration or any further pleadings shall hereafter be entertained.

 

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

HOW SHALL THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN ADMINISTRARIVE MATTERS?

 

In exercising its disciplinary authority in administrative matters,

however, this Court has always kept in mind that lawyers should not be

hastily disciplined or penalized. In administrative proceedings against

lawyers, this Court is always guided by this principle, that is:

The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on

the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and

only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct

which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an

officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause

loss of moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those

acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer

should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to

such extent as to clearly show the lawyer’s unfitness to continue in the

practice of law.

 

WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?

 

“. . . the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings

are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve

the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar

misconduct.” Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the

administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important

function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and

clients may repose confidence. While it is discretionary upon the Court to

impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper against an erring

lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by

personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the

imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the

bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the

court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.49

 

WAS THE COURT ACCOMMODATING CJ SERENO WHEN IT IMPOSED ON HER LIGHT SANCTIONS?

 

To be clear, however, this accommodation is not a condonation of

respondent’s wrongdoings but a second chance for respondent to mend her

ways, express remorse for her disgraceful conduct, and be forthright to set

an example for all law-abiding members of the legal profession. The legal

profession is a noble profession: as a former Member of this Court, it is

incumbent upon respondent to exemplify respect, obedience, and adherence

to this institution. This judicial temperance is not unprecedented as this

Court has in several cases reduced the imposable penalties so that erring

lawyers are encouraged to repent, reform, and be rehabilitated.

 

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

 

SCD-2018-0018-Re Show cause order in the decision dated May 11 2018 in G.R. No. 237428

 

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 2018-0017:  VALENTINO S. LINGAT AND APRONIANO ALTOVEROS VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. (G.R. NO. 205688, 04 JULY 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT: PERMISSIBLE LABOR CONTRACTING VIS A VIS LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING; WHEN WORK IS CONSIDERED DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY) (BRIEF TITLE: LINGAT AND OLIVEROS VS COCA-COLA BOTTLERS)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

  

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The July 4, 2012 Decision and January 16, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112829 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the December 9, 2008 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED WITH MODIFICATIONS in that separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary grants are awarded to petitioners. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the l~ate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTOR AND A LEGITIMATE JOB CONTRACTOR?

 

 In Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Southern Philippines Federation of Lahar (SPFL)-Workers Solidarity of DARBMUPCO/Diamond-SPFL,23 the Court distinguished a labor-only contractor and a legitimate job contractor in this wise:

 

The Omnibus Rules implenenting the Labor Code distinguishes between permissible job contracting (or independent contractorship) and labor-only contracting. Job contracting is permissible Wlder the Code if the following conditions are met:

 A)  The contractor carries on an independent business and Wldertakes the contract work on his own accoWlt Wlder his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with ~e pe~ce of the work except as to the results thereof;

 B) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his business.

 

In contrast, job contracting shall be deemed as labor-only contracting, an arrangement prohibited by law, if a person who undertakes to supply workers to an employer:

 

(1) Does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other materials; and

 

(2)  The workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business or operations of the employer in which workers are habitually employed.

 

PETITIONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF AN AGENCY ENGAGED BY COCA-COLA TO DO WAREHOUSING. CAN THEY BE CONSIDERED REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF COCA-COLA?

 

YES, BECAUSE WAREHOUSING IS PART OF THE BUSINESS OF COCA-COLA WHICH IS ENGAGED NOT ONLY IN PRODUCTION BUT ALSO IN DISTRIBUTION AND SALE.

 

 Here, based on their Warehousing Management Agreement, CCBPI hired MDTC to perform warehousing management services, which it claimed did not directly relate to its (CCBPI’s) manufacturing operations.24 However, it must be stressed that CCBPI’s business not only involved the manufacture of its products but also included their distribution and sale. Thus, CCBPI’ s argument that petitioners were employees ofMDTC because they performed tasks directly related to “warehousing management services,” lacks merit. On the contrary, records show that petitioners were performing tasks directly related to CCBPI’s distribution and sale aspects of its business.

 

To reiterate, CCBPI is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its products; in turn, as plant driver and segregator/mixer of soft drinks, petitioners were engaged to perform tasks relevant to the distribution and sale of CCBPI’s products, which relate to the core business of CCBPI, not to the supposed warehousing service being rendered by MDTC to CCBPI. Petitioners’ work were directly connected to the achievement of the purposes for which CCBPI was incorporated. Certainly, they were regular employees ofCCBPI.

  

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

 

SCD-2018-0017-Valentino S. Lingat and Aproniano Altoveros Vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 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 2018-0016: COLEGIO MEDICO-FARMACEUTICO DE FILIPINAS, INC. VS. LILY LIM AND ALL PERSON CLAIMING UNDER HER (G.R. NO. 212034, 02 JULY 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; CAN PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION SEND DEMAND LETTER WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL?) (BRIEF TITLE: COLEGIO MEDICO-FARMACEUTICO VS. LIM)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed June 13, 2013 Decision and the April 7, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G .R. SP No. 114856 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11, dated May 13, 2010 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the amount of reasonable compensation for the use of the subject property be increased to 1155,000.00 as stipulated in the Contract of Lease. In addition, the award of actual damages shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from March 5, 2008, the date of extrajudicial demand, to June 30, 2013. From July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction of the monetary award, the rate of interest shall be six percent ( 6%) per annum.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

CAN THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION SEND DEMAND LETTER WITHOUT BOARD RESOLUTION?

 

YES.

 

“In the absence of a charter or byr-1law provision to the contrary, the president is presumed to have the authority to act within the domain of the general objectives ofits business and within the scope of his or her usual duties.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

“In this case, the issuance of the demand letter dated March 5, 2008 to collect the payment of unpaid rentals from respondent and to demand the latter to vacate the subject property was done in the ordinary course of business, and thus, within the scope of the powers of Del Castillo. In fact, it was his duty as President to manage the affairs of petitioner, which included the collection of receivables. Article IV, Section 2 of the By-laws of petitioner expressly states that the President has the power to:

 

xx xx

 

  1. Exercise general [supervision], control and direction of the business and affairs of the Colegio;

 

xx xx

 

  1. Execute in behalf of the Colegio, bonds, mortgages, and all other contracts and agreements which the Colegio may enter into.

 

xx xx

 

  1. Exercise or perfonn such other duties as are incident to his office or such powers and duties as the Board may from time to time [prescribe]. 33

 

Accordingly, even without a board resolution, Del Castillo had the power and authority to issue the demand letter dated March 5, 2008.

 

In any case, even if, for the sake of argument, Del Castillo acted beyond the scope of his authority in issuing the demand letter dated March 5, 2008, the subsequent issuance of the Board Resolution dated May 13, 2008 cured any defect possibly arising therefrom as it was a clear indication that the Board agreed to, consented to, acquiesced in, or ratified the issuance of the said demand letter.”

 

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

 

 SCD-2018-0016-Colegio Medico-Farmaceutico De Filipinas, Inc. Vs. Lily Lim and all person claiming under her

 

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”.