DISPOSITIVE:

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE FACTS ARE STATED BELOW:

PETITIONER THEN FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. RTC RULED THAT IT IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE BASED ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES THERE IS NEED FOR TRIAL TO ASSESS THE FACTS. CA AFFIRMED. SUPREME COURT ALSO AFFIRMED.

WHAT IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT?

HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES OF FACT?

THE COURT MUST EXAMINE THE ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS OF THE PARTIES AND WHETHER THE ISSUE POSED IS PATENTLY INCONSEQUENTIAL AS TO CONSTITUTE A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT.

PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT IN THEIR RESPONDENTS, THEY DID NOT MADE SPECIFIC DENIALS OF COMPLAINT’S ALLEGATIONS OF FACT. COURT SAID THEY NEED NOT USE THE WORD “SPECIFIC”.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

BALLESTEROS WAS DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT. THE GROUNDS WERE: SHE INCURRED TARDINESS, ABSENCES, FAILURE TO OBEY OFFICE PROCEDURES AND FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR P1,2000.00. THE LABOR ARBITER DISMISSED THE CASE. NLRC REVERSED LA DECISION AND GRANTED RELIEFS TO BALLESTEROS. CA AFFIRMED. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.

EMPLOYER ALLEGED THAT BALLESTEROS COMMITTED GROSS NEGLECT OF DULY BECAUSE OF HER HABITUAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE, HABITUAL TARDINESS AND UNDERTILE. CA FOUND THAT THE COMPANY FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR ESTABLISHING GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AS JUST CAUSE FOR TERMINATION. HOW IS THIS APPLIED IN THE CASE?

EMPLOYER CONTENDS THAT BALLESTEROS DISMISSAL WAS DUE TO HER OPEN AND WILFULL DISOBEDINCE  OF COMPANY PROCEDURE IN THE PREPARATION OF DEPOSIT SLIPS. THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE MUST BE CHARACTERIZED BY WRONGFUL AND PERVERSE ATTITUDE. NOT PRESENT HERE.

EMPLOYER SAID BALLESTEROS WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE DUE TO MONETARY SHORTAGE OF P1,100.00. SUCH SHORTAGE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL AND SEVERE. AND IN FACT THE MONEY WAS RETURNED.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SOCORRO SOLD SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY TO LORNA THROUGH A NOTARIZED DEED OF SALE. LATER SOCORRO OBTAINED BACK THE OWNER’S COPY OF THE TITLE AND SOLD THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. LORNA FILED A CASE FOR QUIETING OF TITLE. THE ISSUE IS: WHO OWNS NOW THE PROPERTY. SUPREME COURT SAID THE OWNER IS LORNA. THE DEED OF SALE IN HER FAVOR IS VALID.

SOCORRO SAID THAT THE SALE IF THERE WAS IS VOID BECAUSE THE CONSIDERATION WAS ONLY P10,000 WHILE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS MUCH MUCH MORE. SUPREME COURT SAID GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT OF SALE UNLESS IT SIGNIFIES DEFECT IN CONSENT.

SOCORRO SAID THE SALE IS NOT VALID BECAUSE SHE KEPT THE OWNER’S COPY OF THE TITLE AND TITLE WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED TO LORNA. SUPREME COURT SAID SUCH FACT DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE. TRANSFER OF TITLE IS DIFFERENT FROM TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.

SOCORRO SAID SHE IS AN ILLITERATE AND THUS SHE DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS SIGNING A DEED OF SALE. SC SAID THAT ASIDE FROM HER SELF-SERVING ALLEGATION SHE FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME. BESIDES, THE DOCUMENT IS NOTARIZED AND THUS ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF AUTHENTICITY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.