Latest Entries »

CASE 2020-0012: MERIAM M. URMAZA VS. HON. REGIONAL PROCESUTOR NANNATUS CAESAR R. ROJA/HON. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR JUDYLITO V. ULANDAY AND RAMON TORRES DOMINGO (G.R. NO. 240012. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: PROCEDURE IN APPEALING RESOLUTIONS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS; ORAL DEFAMATION; INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR) (BRIEF TITLE: URMANZA VS REGIONAL PROSECUTOR ROJA ET AL)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
April 13, 2020

CASE 2020-0012: MERIAM M. URMAZA VS. HON. REGIONAL PROCESUTOR NANNATUS CAESAR R. ROJA/HON. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR JUDYLITO V. ULANDAY AND RAMON TORRES DOMINGO (G.R. NO. 240012. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: PROCEDURE IN APPEALING RESOLUTIONS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS; ORAL DEFAMATION; INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR) (BRIEF TITLE: URMANZA VS REGIONAL PROSECUTOR ROJA ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER FILED AT THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE A CASE FOR ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR. THE PROSECUTOR DISMISSED THE CASES  FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR WHO ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. PETITIONER THEN FILED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA. CA DISMISSED PETITION FOR BEING FILED INCORRECTLY AT CA. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AT DOJ. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED RULING OF CA BUT STILL RULED ON THE MERITS. ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

 

WHAT IS THE APPEAL PROCEDURE FROM RESOLUTION OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OR CITY PROSECUTOR?

 

PROCEDURE 1

PROCEDURE 2

 

WAS CA CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION?

 

CA COULD HAVE GIVEN  THE PETITION DUE COURSE BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR IS FINAL, MEANING THE DISPUTE  CAN NOW BE RAISED  IN COURT. BUT PETITION DID NOT STATE THE DATE WHEN SHE RECEIVED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DENYING HER MOTION FOR RECON. THUS, THE PETITION WAS STILL DEFECTIVE AND COULD BE DISMISSED. YET THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDED TO RULE ON THE MERITS.

  

WHAT IS ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR?

 

ORAL 1

ORAL 2

 WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CONSTITUTING PROBABLE CAUSE) TO INDICT RESPONDENT IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR AND ORAL DEFAMATION?

 

NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

 

EVIDENCE

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0012-Meriam M. Urmaza Vs. Hon. Regional Procesutor Nannatus Caesar R. Roja, Hon. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Judylito V. Ulanday and Ramon Torres Domingo 

 

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”.

 

Comment

CASE 2020-0011: PRIME STARS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION CORPORATION AND RICHARD U. PERALTA VS. NORLY M. BAYBAYAN AND MICHELLE V. BELTRAN (G.R. NO. 213961. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: RESIGNATION CONTRADICTED BY FILING COMPLAINT; NO DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS IN OFW EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY DOLE; RECRUITER SOLIDARILY LIABLE) (BRIEF TITLE: PRIME STARS ET AL VS BAYBAYAN ET AL.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
April 9, 2020

CASE 2020-0011: PRIME STARS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION CORPORATION AND RICHARD U. PERALTA VS. NORLY M. BAYBAYAN AND MICHELLE V. BELTRAN (G.R. NO. 213961. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: RESIGNATION CONTRADICTED BY FILING COMPLAINT; NO DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS IN OFW EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY DOLE; RECRUITER SOLIDARILY LIABLE) (BRIEF TITLE: PRIME STARS ET AL VS BAYBAYAN ET AL.)

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT RESPONDENT BELTRAN VOLUNTARILY PRE-TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BY SIGNING A MUTUAL CONTRACT ANNULMENT AGREEMENT. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE THIS THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AT NLRC IS INCONSISTENT WITH RESIGNATION.

 

EXECUTION OF RESIGNATION

 

PETITIONER SAID THAT SINCE THEY ALREADY PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF RESIGNATION THE BURDEN OF PROOF NOW LIES WITH BELTRAN. IS THIS CORRECT?

 

NO, THE BURDEN IS WITH THE EMPLOYER STILL. THE ALLEGED RESIGNATION IS AMBIGUOUS AND DOUBTFUL.

 

BURDEN OF PROVING

 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT  RESPONDENTS SIGNED AN ADDENDUM WHICH ALTERED THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPROVED BY POEA. THEREFORE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE ADDENDUM. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE THE LABOR CODE AND POEA RULES PROHIBIT DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS AND  ALTERATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS APPROVED BY DOLE.

 

NO ALTERATION

 

IS THE RECRUITER, PRIME STARS, LIABLE?

 

YES. UNDER R.A. 8042 THE RECRUITER IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE  FOREIGN EMPLOYER.

 

SOLIDARY 1 

SOLIDARY 2

  

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.

 

SCD-2020-0011-Prime Stars International Promotion Corporation and Richard U. Peralta Vs. Norly M. Baybayan and Michelle V. Beltran

 

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”.

 

Comment

CASE 2020-0010: MICHAEL ADRIANO CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 228572. JANUARY 27, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORP.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
April 8, 2020

CASE 2020-0010: MICHAEL ADRIANO CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 228572. JANUARY 27, 2020) (BRIEF TITLE: CALLEON VS. HZSC REALTY CORP.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER FILED HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA FROM AN NLRC DECISION SUSTAINING THE LABOR’S ARBITER DECISION FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE. IN HIS PETITION, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MALICE OR BAD FAITH, HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. CA SUSTAINED NLRC. PETITIONER FILED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. CA DENIED SAID MOTION IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS FILED LATE COUNTING FROM DATE THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF CA.  SUPREME COURT SAID THE COUNTING OF THE APPEAL PERIOD MUST BE BASED ON THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF C.A. THUS SC REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CA FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

 

WHY SHOULD THE DATE BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE COUNSEL RECEIVED COPY OF NOTICE AND NOT FROM DATE PARTY RECEIVED COPY?

 

BECAUSE THE PARTIES GENERALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR MECHANICS OF AN APPEAL OR AVAILMENT OF LEGAL REMEDIES.

 

DOCTRINE

 

 

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.

 

SCD-2020-0010-Michael Adriano Calleon Vs. HZSC Realty Corporation, et al.

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”.

 

Comment