We are sorry, the requested page does not exist
SC affirms ruling granting bail to ex-Masbate lawmaker, Napoles
The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a ruling of the Sandiganbayan that allowed businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles and former Masbate congresswoman Rizalina Seachone-Laneta to post bail in the plunder charges filed against them in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork scam......»»
SC upholds decision granting Napoles bail in one PDAF case
Pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles and former Masbate Rep. Rizalina Seachon-Lanete have been allowed to post bail after the Supreme Court dismissed a case related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund......»»
Court of Appeals junks ex- VP Binay’s libel case vs Trillanes
The Court of Appeals has affirmed with finality its decision junking the libel case filed by former vice president Jejomar Binay against former senator Antonio Trillanes IV over his implication that Binay was involved in an alleged P100 million-a-year racket on “ghost” senior citizens......»»
Anti-Kaliwa Dam priest challenges Ombudsman case dismissal
A convener of the Stop Kaliwa Dam Network filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on Thursday, challenging the dismissal of an Ombudsman case against officials involved in the construction of the project's access road......»»
DOJ appeals bail for suspects in missing sabungeros case
The Department of Justice is asking a Manila court to reverse its decision to grant bail to the six security guards allegedly involved in the disappearance of six sabungeros or cockfighting aficionados......»»
Ex-PCGG chair perpetually disqualified from holding public office due to grave misconduct
The Supreme Court, citing the Ombudsman’s findings, said former PCGG chairperson Camilo Sabio intervened in a pending case between MERALCO and GSIS by attempting to influence the “judicial discretion” of his brother, former Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio Jr. regarding the case......»»
Retroactive application of Family Code
Married before the effectivity of the Family Code, and fear you cannot nullify your marriage based on the grounds provided therein? Fret not, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a recent case that the Family Code, which took effect on 03 August 1988, shall be given retroactive effect unless vested or acquired rights under relevant laws will be prejudiced or impaired. According to Arthur Candelario v. Marlene Candelario and Office of the Solicitor General (G.R. No. 222068, 25 July 2023), psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code can be applied to the marriage contracted on 11 June 1984 by the parties in this case. Article 256 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the law, including its provision on psychological incapacity, shall have retroactive effect. As such, the ruling of the lower court that the marriage cannot be nullified under Article 36 of the Family Code as the law only became effective after the parties’ marriage was set aside. The Supreme Court also stressed that Republic Act No. 8533 has amended Article 39 of the Family Code, which previously distinguished between marriages solemnized before and after its effectivity. Art. 39 now provides that the action or defense for the declaration of the nullity of marriage shall not prescribe, without distinction, whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the effectivity of the Family Code. A plain reading of the law even shows that nowhere in Art. 36 is it stated that the same may not be applied to marriages celebrated prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. It is basic in statutory construction that where the law is not ambiguous, the Court may not introduce exceptions or conditions where none is provided. Likewise, deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee show that the same issue was considered, and the retroactive application of Art. 36 was voted upon. Jurisprudence is replete with the same pronouncements, such as Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (1997), Republic v. Molina (1997), Republic v. Enclean (2013), and Republic v. De Gracia (2014). The Court cited the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General in this case — that any ruling to the contrary discriminates against married couples for no reason other than having the misfortune of getting married before the enactment of the Family Code. All persons can be afflicted with a psychological disorder resulting in incapacity to perform marital obligations. As such, the issue must not focus on when the parties invoking the nullification contracted the marriage, but on whether the requirements of psychological incapacity under the law are present. In this case, while the Court agreed that Art. 36 may be applied, it negated the finding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential obligations in marriage. Following the same, what is indeed essential in these cases is proving the existence of psychological incapacity, in which gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence must be established. For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cabdo@divinalaw.com. The post Retroactive application of Family Code appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
The only brief that is long
Jurisprudence holds that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. (Fenequito v. Vergara Jr., G.R. No. 172829, 18 July 2012). An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appellant or appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites in the Rules of Court. With respect to ordinary appealed cases to the Court of Appeals (CA), Section 7, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure requires an appellant to file an Appellant’s Brief with the CA within 45 days from receipt of the notice of the clerk. According to the Supreme Court in Philippine Coconut Authority v. Corona International Inc. (G.R. No. 13991, 29 September 2000), the purpose of the Appellant’s Brief is to present to the court in coherent and concise form the point and questions in controversy and by fair argument on the facts and law of the case, to assist the court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. Failure to file an Appellant’s Brief within the prescribed period is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. (Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules) However, the SC clarified in Sindophil Inc. v. Republic (G.R. No. 204594, 07 November 2018) that the use of the permissive “may” in the wording of the above-stated provision means the dismissal of an appeal by the CA is directory and not mandatory. This means that the failure to file an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period would not automatically result in the outright dismissal of the appeal, as the CA is bound to exercise its sound discretion whether to allow the appeal to proceed or not. The SC explained that allowing the appeal despite the failure to file an Appellant’s Brief must be decided by the CA, taking into account all the factors surrounding the case. Its discretion must be exercised with due regard to justice and fair play under the circumstances. In several cases, the question of whether or not to sustain the dismissal of an appeal due to the appellant’s failure to file the Appellant’s Brief had been raised before the SC. In some of these cases, the High Court relaxed the Rules and allowed the belated filing of the Appellant’s Brief. In other cases, however, the Court applied the Rules strictly and considered the appeal abandoned, which thus resulted in its eventual dismissal. Finally, in Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164150, 14 April 2008), the SC revisited the cases that it had previously decided and laid down the following guidelines in confronting the issue of non-filing of the Appellant’s Brief: 1. The general rule is for the CA to dismiss an appeal when no appellant’s brief is filed within the reglementary period prescribed by the rules; 2. The power conferred upon the CA to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory and not ministerial or mandatory; 3. The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the reglementary period does not have the effect of causing the automatic dismissal of the appeal; 4. In case of late filing, the appellate court has the power to still allow the appeal; however, for the proper exercise of the court’s leniency[,] it is imperative that: (a) the circumstances obtaining warrant the court’s liberality; (b) that strong considerations of equity justify an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice; (c) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay; (d) there is no contention that the appellee’s cause was prejudiced; or (e) at least there is no motion to dismiss filed. 5. In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period; and 6.Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse to call for the appellate court’s indulgence except: (a) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (b) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or (c) where the interests of justice so require. The post The only brief that is long appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
CA junks telco’s frequency plea, mandamus case vs. NTC
The Court of Appeals junked the petition for mandamus filed by NOW Telecom Company Inc. against the National Telecommunications Commission or NTC over the company's provisional authority or PA application to operate a cellular mobile telephone service within specific frequency ranges. In a 16-page decision, the appellate court's Special Ninth Division said "the court is powerless" to grant NOW Telecom's plea, especially since the company failed to show a clear legal right to the frequencies it sought. The CA said the decision, penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Walter S. Ong, followed a careful examination of the case. The case began from NOW Telecom's request for NTC's automatic approval issued by the Anti-Red Tape Authority or ARTA. NOW Telecom had filed a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to compel the NTC and former Commissioner Gamaliel Asis Cordoba to stick to ARTA's resolution and OAA both dated 1 March 2021. These ARTA documents stated that NOW Telecom's application for a PA to operate in the frequency range 1970 Mhz-1980 Mhz paired with 2160 Mhz to 2170 Mhz and 3.6 GHz to 3.8 GHz frequency ranges was automatically approved by operation of law. It followed Republic Act 11032, otherwise known as the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018. However, an ARTA resolution dated 17 June 2022 reversed the previous decisions and formally recommended NOW Telecom's application for frequency assignment to the NTC. NOW Telecom's mandamus petition was notably based on its claim for the rights to specific frequency ranges, alleging that the NTC had unjustly neglected its duty to assign them. Yet, court records showed that as early as December 2005, NTC already found NOW Telecom to be non-compliant and was disqualified from the assignment of 3G frequency bands due to unpaid supervision and regulation fees or SRF and spectrum user fees or SUF amounting to P2.6 billion. NOW Telecom has a pending petition filed before the Supreme Court for this penalty imposed by the NTC. NOW Telecom received its PA in January 2006, but it was not specific to 3G and under the condition of paying its outstanding SRF and SUF obligations. In December 2017, NOW Telecom was designated the 20MHz contiguous bandwidth, 3520 to 3540 MHz, under the 3.5 GHz on the same condition that it resolved its outstanding SUF and SRF fines. NOW Telecom's Provisional Authority was extended until September 2020, but the NTC reiterated that the company failed to fulfill the conditions regarding SUF and SRF. Despite the issues hounding the company, NOW Corp. CEO Mel Velarde said he hopes the "Marcos administration" will aid the immediate settlement of its cases as a way of maintaining a "level playing field." _ The post CA junks telco’s frequency plea, mandamus case vs. NTC appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Court of Appeals backs judge in Atio hazing trial
The Court of Appeals has denied for lack of merit a petition for review of a Manila judge’s refusal to inhibit from trying the case of the fatal hazing of University of Santo Tomas law freshman Horacio “Atio” Castillo III......»»
CA junks hazing accused’s inhibition plea
The Court of Appeals has denied the plea of one of the accused in the fatal hazing of University of Santo Tomas freshman law student Horacio Castillo III seeking to compel Regional Trial Court of Manila City Branch 20 acting presiding judge Shirley Magsipoc- Pagalilauan to inhibit from the case. In a 75-page decision promulgated on 22 September 2023 and written by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, the appellate court’s First Division held that the claim of Ralph Trangia that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit has no basis. The CA also did not give weight to Trangia’s claim the alleged failure of the judge to address the issues he raised in his demurrer to evidence shows that she would not be able to decide with utmost partiality. It added that after a careful review of the record of the case and the applicable laws and jurisprudence, it finds that petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for inhibition. “Rather it is evident that petitioner’s claim of bias and partiality is merely based on the denial of his Demurrer to Evidence, which in itself is not sufficient to prove that the court a quo acted with bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose,” said the CA’s decision. “For these reasons, the Court rules that petitioner miserably failed establish that the court a quo acted with manifest impartiality in issuing the assailed Orders,” it added. In denying Trangia’s demurrer, the Manila RTC in an order dated 4 February 2022 held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the offense of hazing as well as the presence and participation of all accused, including petitioner, during the hazing of Castillo by members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity. To recall, Trangia — one of the accused in the death of Castillo — has sought the inhibition of Pagalilauan at the CA on the ground of alleged partiality in denying his motion for demurrer evidence last 24 February 2022, which seeks the immediate dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. On 10 March 2022, the respondent judge issued an order denying Trangia’s motion prompting the latter to move for the reconsideration of the said order but the same was denied on 28 March 2022. This prompted Trangia to elevate his plea before the CA arguing that Pagalilauan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion for inhibition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration considering that she showed partiality in denying his demurrer to evidence despite clear showing that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him. The post CA junks hazing accused’s inhibition plea appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
US federal judge, 96, suspended over ‘mental fitness’
The oldest US federal judge, at age 96, was suspended from her duties Wednesday over questions about her mental competency, in a case evoking the debate over elderly politicians like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Pauline Newman, an appellate court judge since 1984, was accused by colleagues of working too slowly and of frequently appearing confused, agitated, and belligerent, which raised concerns of "disability," according to the ruling by the Judicial Council of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Interviews with staff "provided overwhelming evidence that Judge Newman may be experiencing significant mental problems including memory loss, lack of comprehension, confusion, and an inability to perform basic tasks," it said. Despite being given a reduced workload, Newman takes four times as long as other judges to issue opinions in cases before the court, it said. The council said that because Newman refused to accept being examined by a council-chosen neurologist and psychiatrist to judge her mental acuity, it was suspending her for one year, which could be extended if she still refused to cooperate. But Newman, who has been deprived of reviewing cases since April, has said the proceedings against her were conducted illegally and suggested they were the product of personal animosity from other judges. She backed her argument with the results of examinations by specialists she herself chose. "Judge Newman demonstrated no substantial emotional, medical, or psychiatric disability that would interfere with continuation of her longstanding duties as a judge," psychiatrist Regina Carney said. The case comes amid questions about the capabilities of an increasing number of elderly politicians -- President Joe Biden, 80, and rival Donald Trump, 77, among them -- to perform their duties. Born in 1927, Newman earned a PhD in chemistry from Yale and then became a patent law expert. In 1984 she was named to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a special court dealing with patent laws and government contracts. The ruling against her noted she had been called "the heroine of the patent system." Her attorney, Gregory Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said the review of her case was stacked against her. "The bottom line is that Judge Newman did not get due process," he told AFP. He said personal animosities as well as ageism factored into the case. "It's easy to say she's 96, she's past her prime, even if it's not true," Dolin said. "Whatever you might say about some politicians in Washington, Judge Newman is not in that group," he added. The post US federal judge, 96, suspended over ‘mental fitness’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Ressa, Rappler acquitted of tax evasion
Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa and Rappler Holdings Corporation were acquitted by a Pasig court in a tax evasion case filed in connection with their supposed failure to declare tax in 2015. Atty. Francis Lim, counsel of Ressa, said his client and RHC were acquitted by the Pasig Regional Trial Court Branch 157 of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All five tax evasion charges filed against the respondents have been junked by the Pasig RTC which was filed during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte. Ressa, 59 years old, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov in 2021. She has been fighting multiple charges filed during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte. The journalist and Rappler had faced five government charges of tax evasion stemming from the 2015 sale of Philippine depositary receipts, which is a way for companies to raise money from foreign investors. In January, the Court of Tax Appeals First Division found Ressa and RHC not guilty on three counts of failure to supply the correct information and one count of tax evasion, amounting to P141 million worth of taxes, including surcharge and interest. The fifth charge was heard by a different court, which cleared her and Rappler of wrongdoing yesterday. However, Ressa and Rappler face an uncertain future as they battle another two court cases, despite the acquittals. Ressa and a former colleague Rey Santos Jr. are appealing a cyber libel conviction that carries a nearly seven-year jail sentence. The post Ressa, Rappler acquitted of tax evasion appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Trudeau to be star witness in election meddling probe
The Canadian prime minister could be the star witness in his government’s investigation of alleged national election meddling by China, Russia and other countries. Justin Trudeau was asked by reporters in Singapore Friday on the possibility of him testifying in the case, he replied, “Willingly and with very much enthusiasm.” The prime minister, who was coming from the ASEAN Summit in Indonesia, added, “I think it’s important for Canadians to know exactly everything this government has been doing in regards to foreign interference, and to talk frankly about the challenges that we continue to face in our democracies around the world.” His statement came a day after Ottawa named an appeals court judge to lead the inquiry into the allegations surrounding federal elections in 2019 and 2021. Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josee Hogue replaces the investigator who resigned in June. Trudeau faced pressure to explain how it first responded to the claims that Beijing sought to subvert Canada’s democratic process. Relations between Ottawa and Beijing hit a new low this year amid accusations of Chinese meddling in those elections and the attempted intimidation of Canadian lawmakers that led to the expulsion of a Chinese diplomat in May. Beijing has called the accusations “groundless” and responded by sending home a Canadian diplomat from the country’s consulate in Shanghai. The reported accusations included secret campaign donations and that Chinese operatives were working for Canadian candidates and lawmakers in an attempt to influence policy. WITH AFP The post Trudeau to be star witness in election meddling probe appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Is prior demand necessary?
Time and again, I have emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules. Again, no matter how meritorious your case is, if you do not follow procedure, it can be dismissed on a mere technicality. That will be a crushing defeat; a knockout punch in the very first round. Your time, resources, and effort, all go down the drain. All for nothing. Specifically, I talk about sending a demand to your obstinate lessee before filing an ejectment suit. Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the ejectment suit “shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessees, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises of no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after 15 days in the case of land or five days in the case of buildings.” Failure to comply, even if the lessor has all the right to dispossess the lessee, will result in the dismissal. Such is what happened in Velia J. Cruz v. Spouses Maximo and Susan Christensen (G.R. 205539 promulgated 4 October 2017). Petitioner Velia Cruz inherited property from her mother. Respondent Spouses Maximo and Susan Christensen already leased said property from her mother during her lifetime. Ms. Cruz, upon her mother’s passing, thus became the spouses’ lessor. In time, lessees failed repeatedly to pay rent. Thus, Ms. Cruz was constrained to demand that the lessees vacate the property and pay all unpaid rentals. The parties met at the barangay for conciliation. No settlement was inked. Three years later, Ms. Cruz finally sent a demand letter to vacate the property and pay the rental arrears. There being a refusal still by the lessees, Ms. Cruz was constrained to file an ejectment suit. At the trial court, Ms. Christensen admitted the lease but made an issue out of the demand letter. She denied having received it and claimed she did not know whose signature appeared on the letter, allegedly receiving it on her behalf. The court, on account of this ground, dismissed the case. It opined that since it was not established who received the demand letter, it could not be said that the lessee received it. Thus, a failure to comply with the demand requirement. Upon dismissal, Ms. Cruz wasted no time appealing to the next level of court. The Regional Trial Court on appeal, gave her the nod. It gave due course to her appeal and required the lessee to vacate the premises and pay the unpaid rentals. Respondent spouses’ turn to go up. The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the dismissal by the trial court. Thus, Ms. Cruz had no other recourse but to go up to the final bulwark of justice. Among the issues raised was the sufficiency of the demand; or if such is necessary in the first place. In ruling in favor of petitioner Cruz, the Supreme Court declared, “[T]he property in this case is owned by petitioner. Respondents had a month-to-month lease with the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. Petitioner contends that no prior demand was necessary in this case since her Complaint was premised on the expiration of respondent’s lease, not on the failure to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of the lease. “The jurisdictional requirement of prior demand is unnecessary if the action is premised on the termination of the lease due to expiration of the terms of the contract. The complaint must be brought on the allegation that the lease has expired and the lessor demanded the lessee to vacate, not on the allegation that the lessee failed to pay rents. The cause of action which would give rise to an ejectment case would be the expiration of the lease. Thus, the requirement under Rule 70, Section 2 of a prior ‘demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate’ would be unnecessary. xxx xxx “However, the respondents’ Answer to the Complaint is telling. Respondents admit that they only had a month-to-month lease since 1969. They contend that they had been continuously paying their monthly rent until sometime in 2002 when the petitioner refused to receive it. Thus, as early as 2002, the petitioner, as the lessor, already refused to renew respondents’ month-to-month verbal lease. Therefore, the respondent’s lease had already long expired before the petitioner sent her demand letters. “Respondents cannot feign ignorance of petitioner’s demand to vacate since the matter was brought to barangay conciliation proceedings in 2005. The barangay certification issued on 11 August 2005, shows that no compromise was reached between the parties.” “Therefore, the respondents’ insistence on the non-receipt of the demand letter is misplaced. Their verbal lease over the property had already expired sometime in 2002. xxx xxx The demand letter would have been unnecessary since respondents’ continued refusal to vacate despite the expiration of their verbal lease was sufficient ground to bring the action.” Clear as day. Another good distinction learned. If the ground is the expiration of the lease, no demand is needed. In case you as a landlord, are in a like situation, you know that no demand before the institution will not be a fatal infirmity. Sources: Section 2, Rule 70, Rules of Court Velia J. Cruz v. Spouses Maximo and Susan Christensen as cited above The post Is prior demand necessary? appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Void ownership, void contract
Rebecca Fullido and Gino Grilli, an Italian, were sweethearts. Eventually, they maintained a common-law relationship. In time, Gino bought a lot for them and had a house built on it. Gino, being a foreigner prohibited from purchasing real estate, and the title to the land was put in the name of Rebecca. But to ensure his right over it, they entered into an agreement whereby Gino leased the property from Rebecca for fifty years, subject to an automatic renewal for a like period. In addition, they entered into an agreement where Gino, among others, denied Rebecca the right to dispose of the property and that her hold on to it would be a co-terminus with their relationship. The time came when their relationship went sour. Parties traded accusations of unfaithfulness against each other. Court actions ensued. Rebecca filed for a protection order against Gino under the Violence Against Women and Children Law or VAWC. Gino filed for the ejectment of Rebecca from their land. In the ejectment case, the court sided with Rebecca. It said that she could not be ousted because she was a co-owner. The court also considered the protection order issued by another court against Gino. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court opined that the action filed by Rebecca against Gino had no bearing on the ejectment case. And since the only issue in the ejectment case is who has a better right to possession, the court sided with Gino citing the presence of a valid and existing lease in his favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the appealed court. Rebecca, undaunted, went to the Supreme Court. She posited that Gino had no right over the property. For one, he is a foreigner prohibited by the Constitution from owning land. And another, the contract the parties entered into had no effect whatsoever as Gino had no right to own land in the first place. To this issue, the Supreme Court ruled, “Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, natural resources shall not be alienated, except with respect to public agricultural lands, and in such cases, the alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. xxx xxx The prohibition on the transfer of lands to aliens was adopted in the present 1987 Constitution, under Sections 2, 3, and 7 of Article XII thereof. Agricultural lands, whether public or private, include residential, commercial, and industrial lands. The purpose of prohibiting the transfer of lands to foreigners is to uphold the conservation of our national patrimony and ensure that agricultural resources remain in the hands of Filipino citizens. “The prohibition, however, is not limited to the sale of lands to foreigners. It also covers leases of lands amounting to the transfer of all or substantially all the rights of dominion. In the landmark case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She, the Court struck down a lease contract of a parcel of land in favor of a foreigner for a period of 99 years with an option to buy the land for 50 years. “Where a scheme to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against the transfer of lands to aliens is readily revealed as the purpose for the contracts, then the illicit purpose becomes the illegal cause rendering the contracts void. Thus, if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also of the right to dispose of it — rights which constitute ownership. “If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines is indeed in grave peril. Based on the above-cited constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential limitations, the Court finds that the lease contract and the MoA in the present case are null and void for virtually transferring the reigns of the land to a foreigner. xxx xxx “Evidently, the lease contract and the MoA operated hand-in-hand to strip Fullido of any dignified right over her own property. The term of lease for 100 years was obviously in excess of the allowable periods under PD No. 471. xxx xxx The title of Fullido over the land became an empty and useless vessel, visible only on paper, and was only meant as a dummy to fulfill a foreigner’s desire to own land within our soils. It is disturbing how these documents were methodically formulated to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against land ownership by foreigners. “The said contracts attempted to guise themselves as a lease, but a closer scrutiny of the same revealed that they were intended to transfer the dominion of a land to a foreigner in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Even if Fullido voluntarily executed the same, no amount of consent from the parties could legalize an unconstitutional agreement. The lease contract and the MoA do not deserve an iota of validity and must be rightfully struck down as null and void for being repugnant to the fundamental law. These void documents cannot be the source of rights and must be treated as mere scraps of paper.” The facts and the quoted salient portion of the decision are from Rebecca Fullido vs Gino Grilli (G.R. 215014, 29 February 2016) The post Void ownership, void contract appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Guidelines on electronic submission of pleadings in lower courts
The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 11 April 2023, approved A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-CV or the Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Being Filed Before the Lower Courts Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule. Under the Guidelines, electronic transmittal shall be the primary method for filing all pleadings and court submissions in all cases governed by the Rules of Court, as amended, before all lower courts (i.e., first and second-level courts, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals and Sandiganbayan) starting 5 April 2024. The Guidelines outline the electronic transmittal process for submitting PDF copies of pleadings, annexes, exhibits, and other related documents. These documents should be transmitted to the official e-mail address of the court where the case is pending. All electronic transmittals must be made using the e-mail addresses of record of the filing party or counsel who are required to use a professional email account as their email addresses of record. Counsels are likewise mandated to regularly monitor their respective e-mail inboxes. In case an electronic transmittal is made with an e-mail address not found on record, the entire transmittal shall not be considered as filed. In instances when the primary manner of filing is through personal filing, by registered mail, or by accredited courier in accordance with Rule 13, Section 3(a), 3(b), or 3(c) of the Rules of Court, the PDF copies must be transmitted within 24 hours from the filing of the paper copy. In such case, the pleading shall be deemed filed on the date and time of filing of the paper copy. The filer is likewise required to execute a verified declaration that the pleading or court submission and its accompanying documents, if any, submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the paper copies filed and served. In case of a violation of the said declaration, the court, on motion or motu proprio, and after notice and hearing, may impose sanctions against the lawyer, law firm, or party responsible for the filing. For cases primarily filed through electronic transmittal, subsequent paper copies are not necessary, and the electronic transmittal time shall be considered as the time of filing. It bears noting that the court’s permission is required for certain types of documents before they may be filed through electronic transmittal (e.g. initiatory pleadings and initiatory responsive pleadings, sealed and confidential documents or records, etc.). To establish the proof of filing, the PDF copy of the pleadings filed personally should reflect the written or stamped acknowledgment by the clerk of court. Meanwhile, the PDF copies of pleadings or court submissions filed by registered mail or accredited courier should show the proof of mailing as required under the Rules of Court as well as the proof of payment, as applicable. As regards pleadings that were electronically filed, the PDF should include an affidavit of electronic filing. The Guidelines further specify rules for file attachment, filename formats, transmittal e-mail structure, and other relevant matters. According to the Supreme Court, the Guidelines aim to address docket congestion and court delay, help reduce the use of paper, and facilitate the time and fair delivery of justice. The issuance of the Guidelines is indeed a step closer to the Supreme Court’s goal of digitally transforming the judiciary system. On the part of law practitioners, this is a welcome development as this will save them valuable time and resources in the filing and service of pleadings. For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cabdo@divinalaw.com. The post Guidelines on electronic submission of pleadings in lower courts appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Probationary employment
Dear Atty. Vlad, I am an owner of a Coffee Shop situated in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. On 15 May 2023, I hired Ms. Maribeth as a probationary employee. On 2 August 2023, I terminated her employment for her failure to pass the probationary phase of her employment due to poor performance. She is claiming that she was illegally dismissed. In addition, she is also demanding overtime pay. Is she correct? I hope you can assist me. Mariolle Dear Mariolle, Your right to determine the fitness of your employees for regular employment is included in your management prerogatives as an employer. In the case of Pilar Espina, et al. vs Court of Appeals, et. al., GR 164582, 28 March 2007, the Court ruled: “It must be noted that petitioners were terminated prior to the expiration of their probationary contracts on 3 July 2001. As probationary employees, they enjoyed only temporary employment status. In general terms, this meant that they were terminable anytime, permanent employment not having been attained in the meantime. The employer could well decide if he no longer needed the probationary’s service or his performance fell short of expectations, as a probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is under observation and evaluation to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. During the probationary period, the employer is given the opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of the employee to determine if he has the qualification to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. The length of time is immaterial in determining the correlative rights of both the employer and the employee in dealing with each other during said period. Thus, as long as the termination was made before the expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer was well within his rights to sever the employer-employee relationship. A contrary interpretation would defeat the clear meaning of the term ‘probationary.’” (Emphasis supplied) With respect to her claim for overtime pay, since she is the one claiming for overtime pay, she has to prove first that she has rendered overtime work which is inured to the benefit of her employer. In the case of Etermit Employees and Workers Union vs Jesus de Veyra, GR 50110, 21 September 1990, the Court pointed out, to wit: “The contention of petitioner union that it does not have the legal obligation to present evidence on its claim for overtime pay is untenable. It is basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation and therefore, it behooves upon petitioner claiming overtime pay to prove that it is entitled to the same.” If she cannot prove that she rendered overtime work that was duly authorized by you as her employer, she is not entitled to overtime pay and overtime pay premium. I hope that I was able to help you based on the facts you stated. Atty. Vlad del Rosario The post Probationary employment appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
ABS-CBN review petition vs Willie dismissed
Issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a 22-page decision penned by Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, dismissing the Petitions for Review filed by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and partly granting the Petition for Review filed by Willie B. Revillame. The petitions challenge various rulings of the Court of Appeals thus on 23 August 2010, Revillame filed a civil action before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court seeking to cancel, terminate, and rescind his three-year contract with ABS-CBN (Civil Case No. Q-10-67770). Revilla under the contract, was to host the show “Wowowee” on the ABS-CBN network until 10 September 2011 “or upon cancellation or earlier termination of the program.” The suit prompted Revillame to withdraw from “Wowowee” on 5 May 2010, which was followed by ABS-CBN’s refusal to release Revillame as its talent and the network’s subsequent replacement of “Wowowee” with a different program. The television company on 15 September 2010, filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, praying for liquidated damages in the amount of over P700 million, plus over P400 million for each further violation by Revillame, or for each week of violation of their contract. Later on, ABS-CBN applied for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to restrain Revillame from performing with TV5, owned by ABC Development Corporation (ABC Corporation) on a similar show, titled “Willing Willie.” The RTC denied the TRO application but ordered Revillame to post a bond in the amount of P426,917,646.96 as security for any damage that may be incurred by ABSCBN. The company then proceeded to file a complaint with the Makati RTC for copyright infringement against Revillame, ABC Corporation, Wilproductions Inc., and one Ray Espinosa. This prompted ABC Corporation and Espinosa to go to the CA to restrain the Makati RTC from proceeding with the copyright infringement case. The CA ruled in favor of ABC Corporation and Espinosa, finding that ABS-CBN engaged in forum shopping for filing two suits: (1) its Compulsory Counterclaim in Civil Case No. Q-10-67770 pending before the Quezon City RTC and (2) the Complaint for Copyright Infringement pending before the Makati RTC. The CA found that both cases are based on one cause of action: Revillame’s alleged breach of its contract with ABS-CBN. The Supreme Court would later affirm the CA’s ruling in a separate case (G.R. No. 201664). The post ABS-CBN review petition vs Willie dismissed appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
SC absolves Resorts World gunman
The lone gunman in the Resort’s World tragedy in 2017 that resulted in the death of more than 30 individuals and injured 54 others got a favorable decision from the Supreme Court as the guilty verdict for dishonesty in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth was reversed. The reversal came six years after the death of Jessie Javier Carlos, the gunman, who was given a guilty verdict for dishonesty when he was still a government employee. The SC en banc, in a 16-page decision, promulgated on 18 April, reversed and set aside the October 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals after it found that the government failed to comply with procedures under Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. It also set aside the penalty of dismissal from service, with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment imposed against Carlos. “In making the clarifications in this present case, this Court is not, in any way, tolerating the concealment of ill-gotten wealth,” the SC said. “Strict compliance with Section 10 of Republic Act 6713 precisely allows the government to weed out simple, correctible errors from actually deliberate, sinister attempts to conceal ill-gotten wealth,” it later added. The deceased Carlos was a former tax specialist at the Department of Finance — One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center on a contractual basis. The Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty in 2012 for failing to disclose several assets. In 2015, the CA granted in part his petition and found him guilty of dishonesty. Carlos, however, argued that he was not given the opportunity to correct his alleged omissions or mistakes. For its part, the SC said Carlos cannot be held liable for omissions or errors in his SALNs because the government failed to comply with the review and compliance procedure under RA 6713 and he was not given the opportunity to correct his SALN. “The foregoing review and compliance mechanism is mandatory. Without compliance with it, liability for failure to file, or for omissions or errors in SALNs will not attach,” the SC said. It added the reporting individual cannot be subjected to disciplinary action without being informed of their errors or omissions, and also being afforded an opportunity to comply. After his 2017 attack at the Resorts World Manila that led to the deaths of scores of individuals and injuries to others in a shooting rampage, Carlos took his own life. His family asked for forgiveness from the victims. The post SC absolves Resorts World gunman appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»