J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The September 30, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07288, is hereby AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“We sustain the findings of the trial court and the appellalc court that treachery attended the commission of the crlme. Treachery is present when the following elements are present: (a) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution to ensure the safoly of the offender from defensive or retaliatory ads of the victim and (b) the deliberate adoption by the offender of such means, methods or manner of execution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim who gave no provocation,25 without affording the latter any real chance to defend hlmself and thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.26”

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:

“ACCORDINGLY, Decision No. 2018-010 dated January 17, 2018 and Resolution No. 2020-180 dated January 29, 2020 of the Commission on Audit – En Banc are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The approving, certifying, and authorizing officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission are absolved from refunding the disallowed amount solidarily and individually under Notice of Disallowance No. 11-003-101-(10) dated December 10, 2011.

So Ordered.“

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SEC INCREASED ITS COUNTERPART CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR PROVIDENT FUND BY 15% ACROSS THE BOARD. THEY SOURCED THE INCREASE FROM THEIR RETAINED INCOME. COA DISALLOWED THE INCREASE BECAUSE UNDER THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF SAID YEAR (2010) RETAINED INCOME MUST ONLY BE USED FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY AND MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. FURTHER COA REQUIRED THE SEC OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCREASE TO RETURN SUCH DISALLOWED 15% INCREASE AS WELL AS WHAT THEY PERSONALLY RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASE. OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ORDERED TO REFUND WHAT THEY RECEIVED. SUPREME COURT SAID THE OFFICERS CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO RETURN THE DISALLOWED INCREASE BECAUSE THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. THEY ARE NOT ALSO BE COMPELLED TO RETURN WHAT THEY PERSONALLY RECEIVED BECAUSE IT WILL RESULT TO UNDUE PREJUDICE AND BY REASON OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. IF OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ORDERED TO REFUND WHAT THEY RECEIVE, THE OFFICERS MUST NOT ALSO BE ORDERED TO REFUND.

Finally, undue prejudice would also occur if the payees-recipients, including the concerned SEC officers, are made to foot an additional 15% contribution which ought to have been shouldered by the SEC itself. To repeat, payees-recipients contribute an equivalent of 3% of their monthly salary. To order them to answer for the 15% counterpart contribution of the SEC would, in effect, make their total contribution equivalent to 18% of their monthly salary. Under Section 4342 of the General Provisions of GAA 2010, salary deductions for provident funds, among others, is allowed so long as an employee’s total take home pay will not fall below P3,000.00. By ordering payees-recipients to return the amounts in effect increasing their provident fund contributions to 18%, low-ranked employees may already have a take home pay of less than P3,000.00.

All told, the SEC officers would suffer undue prejudice should they be compelled to return the amounts paid under their names in the provident fund using SEC’s retained earnings. At any rate,.it could also disrupt the provident fund system and cause unforeseen damage and complications to its finances.

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:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 10, 2020 and Resolution dated October 2, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155268 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Next Wave Maritime Management, Inc., MTM Ship Management Pte. Ltd., and Arnold Marquez, are ordered to jointly and severally PAY petitioner Resty S. Caampued the following:

1. US$60,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment for total and permanent disability rating in accordance with the 2010 PO EA-SEC;

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

3. Six percent (6%) legal interest per annum on the total monetary award from finality of this decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

INTER-ALIA, THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE CASE: PETITIONER WAS CLAIMING FOR TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS DUE TO MEDICAL CONDITION ARISING FROM HIS WORK IN A VESSEL.  RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT HIS MEDICAL CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO HIS EMPLOYMENT ON BOARD THE VESSEL WHICH HE ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE AND SUCH FAILURE BARS HIS CLAIM. COURT OF APPEALS DENIED HIS CLAIM. SUPREME COURT REVERSED C.A. AND GRANTED HIS CLAIM. SC SAID EVEN IF PETITIONER HAS PRE-EXISTING DISEASE, STILL HIS CLAIM IS COMPENSABLE IF HIS WORK AGGRAVATED HIS PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. ALSO HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO DISCLOSE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION MUST BE ATTENDED WITH MALICE. HERE, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MALICE. FURTHER, THE COMPANY DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN MUST ISSUE A FINAL MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND THIS MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. HERE, THERE WAS NO FINAL MEDICAL ASSESSMENT BUT ONLY A REPORT BY THE PHYSICIAN TO RESPONDENT COMPANY AND THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SUCH REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO PETITIONER.

“In Gere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc. 62 the Court decreed that the company-designated physician must not only “issue” a final medical assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition. He must also – and the Court cannot emphasize this enough – “give” his assessment to the seafarer concerned. That is to say that the seafarer must be fully and properly informed of his medical condition. The results of his/her medical examinations, the treatments extended to the seafarer, the diagnosis and prognosis, if needed, and, of course, the seafarer’s disability grading must be fully explained to him/her by no less than the company-designated physician.

Here, Dr. Alegre only issued a medical report addressed to Crew Operations Manager Captain Arnold Marquez. As in Gere, this medical report cannot be regarded as anything more than an internal communication between the company-designated physician and respondent Next Wave. Further, petitioner was not even furnished a copy of said medical report. Respondents did not deny this. They simply posited that the assessment was explained to petitioner.”

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”.