J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2019-0062: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD/VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 207154/G.R. NO. 222046. DECEMBER 5, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: OMBUDSMAN VS SNTIDAD ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SANTIDAD WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND DISHONESTY FOR SIGNING INVOICE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF 21 VANS TO CONGRESSMAN ANDAYA WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSFER. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY BUT HE COMMITTED DISHONESTY.

HE WAS ALSO CRIMINALLY CHARGED BEFORE THE SANDIGANG BAYAN FOR FALSIFICATION OF THE INVOICE RECEIPT. HE WAS CONVICTED.

SUPREME COURT SAID SANTIDAD WAS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. THERE WERE SEVERAL SIGNS WHICH SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE VANS WERE ANOMALOUS. YET SANTIDAD DID NOT HEED THESE SIGNS.

SUPREME COURT EXONERATED HIM ON THE FALSIFICATION CHARGE. THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT PROVEN.

IN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WHAT IS VITAL?

THERE MUST BE MALICIOUS INTENT.

 ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY SANTIDAD SAID THAT HE RELIED IN GOOD FAITH THAT HIS SUBORDINATES WOULD PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS REGULARLY. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

WRONG. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH WOULD HAVE ALERTED HIM TO EXERCISE MORE DILIGENCE AND HE FAILED TO DO SO, HE CANNOT RAISE SUCH DEFENSE.

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-2019-0062-Office of the Ombudsman Vs. Venancio G. SantidadVenancio G. Santidad Vs. People of the Philippines

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 2019-0061: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOHN SANOTA Y SARMIENTO, DEO DAYTO Y GENORGA @ “RUBROB” AND ROLANDO ESPINELI Y ACEBO @ “LANDOY” (G.R. NO. 233659. DECEMBER 10, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS SANOTA ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THERE WAS ONLY ONE WITNESS. HE DID NOT SAW THE ACTUAL ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE. THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED. YET THE COURT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT.

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-2019-0061-People of the Philippines Vs. John Sanota y Sarmiento, Deo Dayto y Genorga @ “Rubrob” and Rolando Espineli y Acebo @ “Landoy”

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 2019-0060: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MANUEL C. BULATAO (G.R. NO. 200972. DECEMBER 11, 2019, HERNANDO, J.)  (SUBJECT/S: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; ABANDONMENT AND TERMINATION; DOUBT BEING RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE – EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE) (BRIEF TITLE: PNB VS. BULATAO)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

BULATAO WAS IT HEAD OF PNB. HE WAS INDUCED TO RETIRE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF PNB OFFERED RETIREMENT OPTION. AND  HE RETIRED BECAUSE HE DID NOT LIKE WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN HIS  GROUP. LATER HE WITHREW HIS RETIREMENT LETTER AND RESUMED WORKING. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE BOARD APPROVED HIS RESIGNATION. PNB CONSIDER HIS LETTER AS RESIGNATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RETIREMENT SCHEME IN PLACE. SUPREME COURT RULED HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. THE PROMISE OF RETIREMENT TO HIM CONSTITUTES PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. IF THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER HE INTENDED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN, SUCH DOUBT SHALL BE RESOLVED IN HIS FAVOR.

WHAT IS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL?

WHEN IS THERE ABANDONMENT?

WHEN THE EMPLOYEE FAILED TO REPORT FOR WORK AND WHEN THERE IS CLEAR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE TO ABANDON HIS WORK AS MANIFESTED BY OVERT ACT TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

DID BULATAO COMMIT ABANDONMENT?

NO. BULATAO’S FILING OF AN ILLEGAL TERMINATION CASE SHOWS THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHICH EVIDENCE IS TRUE, THAT DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE. EQUIPOISE 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-2019-0060-Philippine National Bank Vs. Manuel C. Bulatao

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”.