J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

SC-2020-0036: OLIVER B. FELIX, VS. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, (G.R. No. 237129, DECEMBER 9, 2020, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: FELIX VS VITRIOLO)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 1 7, 2017 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149063 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court finds respondent Julito D. Vitriolo GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and imposes upon him the penalty of DISMISSAL from service, with the corresponding accessory penalties.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENT WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHED. PETITIONER, A FACULTY MEMBER OF PLM, WROTE LETTERS TO RESPONDENT REQUESTING RESPONDENT TO INVESTIGATE  ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL OPERATIONS OF PLM. RESPONDENT FAILED TO ANSWER SAID LETTERS AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION. OMBUDSMAN RULED HIS OMISSION  CONSTITUTES GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. HE WAS DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE. ON APPEAL CA RULED RESPONDENT COMMITTED ONLY SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY AND IMPOSED 30 DAYS SUSPENSION. EVIDENCE SHOWS HE REFERRED MATTER TO VARIOUS UNITS OF CHED. BUT SUPREME COURT REVERSED CA AND AFFIRMED OMBUDSMAN RULING. THE FACT IS RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROMPTLY ANSWERED PETITIONER’S LETTERS AND THE FACT THAT AFTER SO MANY YEARS THERE WAS NO RESULT OF INVESTIGATION SHOWS RESPONDENT DID NOT PERFORM HIS DUTY.  SOME SIGNIFICANT FACTS ARE STATED BELOW:

“Worse, in Vitriolo’s reply dated July 11, 4014 to Felix’s June 30, 2014 letter, he only gave the lame excuse that the one assigned for investigation has retired without turning over his findings. Vi riol◊ even admitted that as late as August 3, 2015, he was still making referrals for the investigation of the matter to different CHED offices. If Vitriolo truly ordered an investigation of the alleged diploma-mill operations of PLM and considering that five long years has passed since Felix first wrote the letters to Vitriolo regarding the matter, a definite finding should have already been arrived at.

What is apparent in Vitriolo’s actions is that he did not take the allegations of Felix seriously. His flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his official duties could have allowed the continuation of PLM’s illegal academic programs.

All told, Vitriolo’s failure to reply to the two letters sent by Felix is not a simple violation of Section 5 (a) ofR.A. No. 6713 but an omission that gave rise to a more serious problem of the possible continuation of the illegal programs and diploma-mill operations of PLM. Because of Vitriolo’s gross neglect of duty, the investigation was not undertaken and the possible administrative liabilities of those involved were not determined.”

WHAT IS GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY?

“Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 43“

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”.

CASE 2020-0035: MARTIN N. LIM, JR., VS. MARIA CONCEPCION D. LINDAG (G.R. No. 234405, DECEMBER 9, 2020, PERALTA, C. J.) (SUBJECT/S: ESTAFA THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION; MORAL DAMAGES; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; CIVIL LIABILITY IN CASE OF ACQUITTAL) (BRIEF TITLE: LIM VS LINDAG)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 18, 2017 Decision and the September 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104923 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, petitioner Martin N. Lim, Jr. is ORDERED to PAY the amount of Pl,300,000.00 as actual damages subject to six percent (6%) per annum interest rate from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid. The award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are DELETED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENT BOUGHT CONDO FROM SAN JOSE BUILDERS. PETITIONER WAS SALES AGENT OF SELLER. RESPONDENT ISSUED TWO CROSSED  CHECKS TO PETITIONER. ONE CHECK AS PAYMENT AND ANOTHER FOR EXPENSES TO TRANSFER TITLE. RESPONDENT DISCOVERED PAYMENT CHECK WAS ENCASHED BUT NOT BY SAN JOSE BUILDERS. PETITIONER SAID HE WAS ROBBED AND CHECKS WERE TAKEN FROM HIM. ESTAFA CASES WERE FILED. BUT THESE CASES WERE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT COURT (CA) RULED THAT PETITIONER IS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR VALUE OF CHECKS, MORAL DAMAGES, NOMINAL DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES. SC AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION DELETING MORAL DAMAGES, NOMINAL DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES.

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT SINCE HE WAS FOUND WITHOUT CRIM LIABILITY HE MUST NOT ALSO BE CIVILLY LIABLE. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?

NO. IN CASE ACQUITTAL IS BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT, ACCUSED MAY BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE.

“Petitioner maintains that there is no basis for civil liability because he was found innocent of the crime charged. Such argument must fail. It is entrenched in jurisprudence, that the extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only a preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and ( c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted.”

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTYS FEES?

NO. TO BE ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES THERE MUST BE PLEADING AND PROOF. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARE ONLY IN ADDITION TO MORAL DAMAGES WHICH MUST BE PROVEN FIRST.

WHAT ARE THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA THRU MISAPPROPRIATION?

• that the money, good or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, of on commission, of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;

• that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;

• that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

• that there is demand made by the offended party on the offender.

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”.

CASE 2020-0034: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEFFREY DERECO y HAYAG (SUBJECT/S: RAPE) (G.R. NO. 243625, DECEMBER 2, 2020, PERALTA, C.J) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS DERECO)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the April 11, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CR-HC No. 08172, finding accused-appellant Jeffrey Dereco y Hayag GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape, as defined in and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, is AFFIRMED. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn an interest rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum to be computed from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ACCUSED COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT PUNISHABLE UNDER PAR 2 OF ART 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. BUT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE INFORMATION.

It is fundamental that, in criminal prosecutions, every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of the crime charged. No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. Thus, the prosecuting arm of the Government is reminded that prudence should be exercised as to what should be alleged in the Information, as the latter is the battleground of all criminal cases. 29

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”.