J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

“ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 24, 2019 and Resolution dated August 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158565 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated December 1, 2017 and Resolution dated November 19, 2018 of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board – Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in MVA-090-RCMB-NCR-081-13-03-2017 are REINSTATED.

Respondents United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Shell International Trading and Shipping Co. are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay petitioner Kennedy R. Quines the following amounts:

1) total and permanent disability benefits of US$98,848.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment, in accordance with the IBFAMOSUP/IMEC TCCC Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2015-2017, less whatever amount that had already been paid to petitioner by way of financial assistance;

2) ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees; and

3) six percent ( 6%) legal interest per annum of the total monetary amount from finality of this Decision until full payment.

So Ordered.“

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Surely, the fact that petitioner is taking five (5) maintenance medications for his hypertension alone, already permanently incapacitates him from securing gainful employment as a seafarer. Too, there is no showing that he had been re-employed by respondents or engaged as a seaman by any other company ever since he got repatriated in 2016. Verily, his continuous unemployment until this very day indicates his total and permanent disability.

Further, without a valid final and definitive assessments from the company-designated doctors within the 120/240-day period, as in this case, the law already steps in to consider a seafarer’s disability as total and permanent. By operation of law, therefore, petitioner is already deemed to be totally and permanently disabled.”

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:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The decision dated February 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CR HC No. 01366-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Accordingly, accused-appellant RANILO S. SUAREZ is AQUITTED of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. 16 In the present case, it is clear that Agustin had violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR.

……………………………

Furthermore, the Court cannot order or require Agustin to return the money he loaned from Dalumay under these same proceedings. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Thus, the Court is not concerned with the erring lawyer’s civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. 20 Thus, the directive to return the amounts of P300,000.00 and US$9,000.00 under the IBP recommendation cannot be sustained.

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:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 14, 2016 Decision and the February 8, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 03786 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“All told, Article 434 of the Civil Code requires that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim. 44 Identity of the land is the foremost relevant fact or issue to be determined in any action involving real properties. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to properly and sufficiently identify the subject property Lot No. 758, which she claims to have been possessed and owned by her and her predecessors-in-interest. Accordingly, all other remaining issues become futile.”

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”.