We are sorry, the requested page does not exist
Trump hit with $354.9 million penalty, 3-year ban in NY civil fraud case
The lawsuit accuses Trump and his family businesses of overstating his net worth by as much $3.6 billion a year over a decade to fool bankers into giving him better loan term.....»»
Ineffective deed
Under Article 1332 of the Civil Code, there is a presumption of fraud or mistake in the execution of a document if the person who executed it is illiterate. But can such presumption be overcome? If so, how can it be overcome? This is answered and explained in this case......»»
Yanson matriarch’s complaint vs 4 kin junked
A civil case filed by the matriarch of a major transport company in Negros Occidental against her four children over the control of the estate left by the family patriarch has been dismissed by a local court......»»
De Lima granted bail in third and last drug case
By: CMFR StaffPosted on: November 21, 2023, 11:48 am AFTER SIX YEARS, eight months and 21 days, Leila de Lima gained freedom after posting bail of PHP 300,000. Arrested and detained in February 2017, she spent nearly seven years in solitary confinement in Camp Crame-the national police headquarters-deprived of her political and civil rights, isolated from her family and friends, and prevented from.....»»
De Lima granted bail in third and last drug case
By: CMFR StaffPosted on: November 21, 2023, 11:48 am AFTER SIX YEARS, eight months and 21 days, Leila de Lima gained freedom after posting bail of PHP 300,000. Arrested and detained in February 2017, she spent nearly seven years in solitary confinement in Camp Crame-the national police headquarters-deprived of her political and civil rights, isolated from her family and friends, and prevented from.....»»
Ivanka Trump ordered to testify in father’s fraud trial
The New York judge presiding over Donald Trump's civil fraud trial ordered his daughter Ivanka on Friday to testify in the case. Ivanka Trump, 41, was initially named in the lawsuit against Trump and his two eldest sons brought by New York's attorney general but was eventually dropped as a defendant. Trump and his sons Don Jr and Eric are accused of inflating the value of the real estate of the Trump Organization for years to obtain more favorable bank loans and insurance terms. Judge Arthur Engoron dismissed an attempt by Trump's attorneys to quash a subpoena issued to Ivanka Trump by Attorney General Letitia James but gave her until November 1 to appeal the decision. Ivanka Trump served as a senior advisor to her father, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, while he was in the White House but has kept a low profile since he left office. She abandoned her roles in the Trump Organization in January 2017, when her father became president and she and her husband, Jared Kushner, both took up posts in his administration. Before that, Ivanka Trump was an executive vice president of the Trump Organization and was notably in close contact with one of the group's biggest lenders, Deutsche Bank, according to the attorney general's office. The 77-year-old Trump and his sons are also expected to testify at some point during the trial being held in Manhattan. The former president does not risk going to jail, but James is seeking $250 million in penalties and the removal of Trump and his sons from management of the family real estate empire. Trump has repeatedly denounced the trial as a Democratic witch hunt intended to derail his 2024 White House bid. The post Ivanka Trump ordered to testify in father’s fraud trial appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Retirement Pay Law
Dear Atty. Joji, My Dad has been a part-time faculty member of a well-known university since the 1980s. At 65, the age of retirement, he claimed, in accordance with Republic Act 7641, otherwise known as the New Retirement Pay Law, retirement benefits after two decades of employment and service. However, the university denied my dad’s claim for retirement benefits because only full-time permanent faculty of the said university is entitled to said benefits pursuant to university policy and the CBA. Since my dad has not been granted retirement benefits under any agreement with or by a voluntary act, can my dad claim retirement benefits by mandate of any law? Cedrick Dear Cedrick, RA 7641 or the Retirement Pay Law shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid. They shall include part-time employees, employees of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another. The law does not cover employees of retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than 10 employees or workers and employees of the national government and its political subdivisions, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations. Moreover, in the case of De Lasalle Araneta University vs Bernardo, G.R. 190809, the Supreme Court ruled: “For the availing of the retirement benefits under Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 7641, the following requisites must concur: (1) the employee has reached the age of 60 years for optional retirement or 65 years for compulsory retirement; (2) the employee has served at least five years in the establishment; and (3) there is no retirement plan or other applicable agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expression unius est exclusio alterius. Bernardo — being 75 years old at the time of his retirement, having served DLS-AU for a total of 27 years, and not being covered by the grant of retirement benefits in the CBA — is unquestionably qualified to avail himself of retirement benefits under said statutory provision; equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year. The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressum facit cessare taciturn. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.” Hope this helps. Atty. Joji Alonso The post Retirement Pay Law appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
DoJ probing subcontracting ‘swindle’
The Department of Justice will look at the circumstances regarding the filing of multiple counts of swindling against corporate officials of a global telecommunications equipment firm. The DoJ will review the 29-page complaint recently lodged before the National Prosecution Office against eight Manila-based Ericsson Telecommunications Inc. officials. The officials are facing estafa charges for allegedly refusing to pay local subcontractors some P54 million covering 32 completed projects in Luzon alone. The “swindled” Filipino subcontractors completed various technical works involving system integration, structured cabling, civil works, and electrical services for a long list of projects in malls, hospitals, business centers, and schools from 2020 to 2023. The DoJ expressed determination to resolve what appears to be a common practice by foreign investors who take advantage of Filipino subcontractors. The department reminded foreign entities to comply with Republic Act 5455, which requires companies owned in whole or in part by foreigners to contribute to the sound and balanced development of the national company on a self-sustaining basis. The DoJ also warned that abusive foreign investors would be held civilly and criminally accountable. Respondents in the criminal case were foreign corporate bosses Martin Wiktorin, Jesmin Ehsan, Johan Kvist and Wee Tiong Ng. Estafa charges were also filed against Emerson Clemena, Jose Michael Hernal, Charis Heidi Ibarra and Roderick Reodica — all holding office at Ericsson’s Bonifacio Global City office in Taguig City. The government does not condone foreign business companies taking advantage of Filipino subcontractors. The post DoJ probing subcontracting ‘swindle’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Prosecutors reject Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’
Federal prosecutors on Thursday rejected Donald Trump's attempt to have election conspiracy charges dismissed on the grounds that he enjoys immunity for actions he took while in the White House. "No one in this country, not even the president, is above the law," special counsel Jack Smith's team wrote in a 54-page motion filed with the judge presiding over the landmark case. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is to go on trial in Washington in March of next year for allegedly conspiring to subvert the results of the November 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden. The former president's lawyers, in a motion two weeks ago to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, argued that the charges should be thrown out because Trump is "absolutely immune from criminal prosecution." Prosecutors in the special counsel's office dismissed that argument and urged Chutkan to deny Trump's request. "He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans," they said. "No court has ever alluded to the existence of absolute criminal immunity for former presidents. "The implications of the defendant's unbounded immunity theory are startling," they added. "It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member," they said, or "a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary." Trump's bid to invoke the presidential immunity defense is seen as a long shot by legal observers but it could result in a delay to the start of the trial as the argument potentially winds its way up to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. Trump's attempts to use the "absolute immunity" defense in other cases have been rebuffed by judges, but the nation's highest court has never ruled directly on whether a former chief executive is immune from criminal prosecution. Trump is the first former US president to face criminal charges. 'Unsettled question' Trump's attorneys, citing a Supreme Court case involving former president Richard Nixon, said the law provides "absolute immunity" to the president "for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility." As chief executive, they argued, Trump had a responsibility to "ensure election integrity" and was within his rights to challenge the results of the 2020 vote. "As President Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts, the Court should dismiss the indictment," they said. While making the argument that Trump cannot be prosecuted, his lawyers acknowledged the Nixon case they cited involved the civil liability of a former president and not alleged criminal conduct. "The question remains a 'serious and unsettled question' of law," they said. The case before Chutkan accuses Trump of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding -- the January 6, 2021 joint session of Congress that was attacked by a mob of Trump supporters. Other criminal cases against Trump include racketeering charges in Georgia for allegedly conspiring to upend the election results in the southern state and a trial in Florida in May 2024 on charges of mishandling top-secret government documents. Trump and his two eldest sons are also currently involved in a civil fraud trial in New York for allegedly inflating the value of their real estate assets to receive more favorable bank loans and insurance terms. The post Prosecutors reject Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Makati petitions status quo ante vs Taguig
Makati City Mayor Abby Binay yesterday filed an “Urgent Motion for Clarification with Prayer for the Issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order” before Branch 153 of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court in a case entitled “Municipality of Taguig (Now City of Taguig) v. Municipality of Makati (Now City of Makati) et al.,” Civil Case No. 63896. The lady mayor, in an ambush interview, said there should be a smooth transiton because they don’t want disruption of delivery of basic services to the residents. In the Urgent Motion, Makati City asked RTC-Taguig to issue a status quo order against Taguig City citing its attempts to unilaterally and arbitrarily implement the Supreme Court’s decision without any writ of execution from the trial court and even prior to the metes and bounds of parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031 being determined. Binay filed the Urgent Motion accompanied by City Administrator Claro Certeza and City Legal Officer Michael Camiña. The status quo order, which is similar to a cease-and desist order, is an order to maintain the last actual, peaceable, uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy. It was noted in the Urgent Motion that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a “status quo order is warranted in order to promote common good as well as protect the public interest.” Binay said the court is the best avenue to address the matter as far as they are concerned because Taguig City doesn’t want to sign the writ of execution and the memorandum of agreement Makati City is proposing to have a smooth transition. “Even the issue of ownership they don’t want to tackle and it seems they have a different interpretation of the SC ruling and we also have a different view and the best solution is for the court to determine this matter,” Binay said. According to Mayor Binay, “Makati only wants an orderly administration of the Supreme Court decision with the least disruption to the residents and the uninterrupted delivery of basic services in the affected areas.” EMBO residents At the moment, Makati City continue to provide the needed services to the affected enlisted men’s barrio residents because they don’t want interruption and they are the ones giving the funding not Taguig City. “The problem with them they are choosing what they want to take over what about disaster, garbage collection, school, health services, electricity? There are so many things that should be settled first and as long as there is no writ of execution we will continue to provide services to the residents,” Binay said. Makati City cited a number of “alarming and highly confusing incidents” caused by Taguig’s attempt to forcibly execute the SC Decision without a valid writ of execution. These include attempts to enter the premises of a housing project owned by Makati City, as well as to forcibly take possession of several school buildings and health centers in the affected barangays. “Taguig cannot simply take the law into its own hands and act as it pleases without any writ of execution issued by the court. Because of Taguig’s arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious attempts to unilaterally implement the SC Decision in a piece-meal manner, the people’s welfare has been unduly prejudiced by Taguig City and has created unwarranted tension and confusion among the residents and various government agencies,” Mayor Binay said. Makati City noted that the Supreme Court did not expressly order any part of the SC Decision to be immediately executory, nor did it expressly mention in the dispositive part the exact metes and bounds of Parcels 3 and 4 of PSU-2031. Makati City, therefore, asked the trial court to clarify and confirm the necessity of Taguig City first obtaining a writ of execution as well as the court determining the exact metes and bounds of Parcels 3 and 4 of PSU-2031 before the SC Decision can be implemented. The Urgent Motion will also allow Makati to assert its rights as owner of properties located in the disputed areas. As stated by Mayor Binay, “[t]he present case involves a territorial dispute. It does not involve ownership of properties located within the disputed territory.” The post Makati petitions status quo ante vs Taguig 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......»»
Trump business empire under threat as New York fraud trial opens
A combative Donald Trump appeared in a New York court on Monday to face civil fraud charges, denouncing the case as a "sham" intended to torpedo his campaign to retake the White House. The fraud trial, one of several legal battles against the 77-year-old Trump, could potentially see the former president barred from doing business in New York state. "This has to do with election interference, plain and simple," Trump said as he arrived for the opening day of what could be a three-month trial. "What we have here is an attempt to hurt me in an election." New York Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump and his sons Eric and Don Jr committed fraud by inflating the value of the real estate and financial assets of the Trump Organization for years. New York Attorney General Letitia James is now seeking $250 million in penalties and the removal of Trump and his sons from management of the family empire. "Justice will prevail," James told reporters before delivering opening arguments. "No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law," she said. Trump, arriving in court, denounced the case as a "scam" and a "witchhunt." "It's a sham," he said. "My financial statements are phenomenal." Trump is scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington on March 4, 2024 on charges of trying to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election won by Democrat Joe Biden. Trump will then be back in New York state court, this time on charges of paying hush money to a porn star, and later in a Florida federal court, where he is accused of mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Finally, he will also have to answer to state charges in Georgia, where prosecutors say Trump illegally tried to get the southern state's 2020 election results changed in his favor. 'Major blow' In the New York case, Engoron ruled that Trump, his two eldest sons and other Trump Organization executives lied to tax collectors, lenders and insurers for years in a scheme that exaggerated the value of their properties by $812 million to $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2021. The judge revoked the business licenses that allowed the Trump Organization to operate some of its New York properties. Actually enforcing such penalties would be "a major blow to Donald Trump's ability to do business in the state of New York going forward," Will Thomas, a professor of business law at the University of Michigan, told AFP. Trump -- who made his reputation and fortune as a real estate mogul in the 1980s -- could eventually lose control over many of his company's flagship properties, such as his 5th Avenue Trump Tower in Manhattan. According to James, a Democrat, Trump's own apartment in that building is among the spaces that were fraudulently overvalued -- it was listed as three times bigger than its true size. Another Manhattan building, at 40 Wall Street, was overvalued between $200-$300 million in financial disclosures, James alleges. Trump's luxury Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida -- the site of the classified documents drama -- and several other Trump Organization golf clubs also appear in James's complaint. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the New York civil allegations, calling James, who is Black, "racist," and labeling Engoron "deranged." There are likely to be dozens of witnesses called to testify at the trial, including Trump himself and three of his children, Eric, Don Jr and his oldest daughter Ivanka. Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen -- now an outspoken critic of the former president -- and officials from Trump-linked financial institutions are also expected to appear. The post Trump business empire under threat as New York fraud trial opens appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Proving filiation (2)
A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during their parents’ marriage. The certificates of live birth would also identify Danilo de Jesus as their father. There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days that immediately precede the birth of the child due to the following: (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods outlined in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171, of the Family Code (which took effect on 03 August 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible, and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable. Thus, applying the preceding pronouncement to the instant case, it must be concluded that the petitioner —who was born on 5 March 1945, or during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar and before their respective deaths — has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. As the petitioner correctly argues, Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”) satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the Family Code; by itself, said document constitutes an “admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.” Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth since all the records covering the period 1945-1946 of the Local Civil Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed, which necessitated the introduction of other documentary evidence — particularly Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”) — to prove filiation. It was erroneous for the CA to treat the said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof, the same being an express recognition in a public instrument. To repeat what was stated in De Jesus, filiation may be proven by the admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. Relative to the said form of acknowledgment, the Court has further held that — given the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made: Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence. (To be continued) The post Proving filiation (2) appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Use of father’s surname, the child’s decision
The misdeeds or oversights of parents cannot and should not disgrace their children. It is for this basic precept that Philippine laws have granted non-marital children (formerly called “illegitimate” children) a myriad of rights akin to — if not totally similar — those of marital children (formerly called “legitimate” children). Notably, their appellation has been changed to a more appropriate description of their parents’ civil status at the time of their birth rather than the birth’s supposed “legitimacy.” Non-marital children are now permitted to carry their father’s surname upon compliance with requirements set by law and related regulations. While Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides non-marital children’s successional rights, Republic Act 9255, which took effect in 2004, boosted these rights by allowing them to use their father’s surname if their filiation has been recognized by the latter in accordance with some preconditions. The Philippine Statistics Authority or PSA, consequently, revised the implementing rules of RA 9255 in 2016 to better effectuate the wisdom of the law, especially considering the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Grace M. Grande v Patricio T. Antonio (G.R. No. 206248, 18 February 2014), which states that neither the father nor the mother is granted the right to dictate the surname of their non-marital children. Instead, the law gives non-marital children the right to decide whether or not they will use their father’s surname. Just recently, PSA issued Memorandum Circular No. 2023-14, which further revised the implementing rules, providing that prevailing rules shall have retroactive effect for all births occurring within or outside the Philippines where a Filipino is concerned. The Office of the Civil Registrar General also amended the same implementing rules through Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2023, so that existing laws and regulations about the use of non-marital children of the surname of their father shall apply to those born during the effectivity of the Family Code of the Philippines or from 3 August 1988 with (a) unregistered births and (b) registered births, where non-marital children use the surname of their mother. Considering these changes, should non-marital children prefer to use the surname of their father, there must exist an express acknowledgment by the latter of the former through any of the following: (a) affidavit of admission of paternity found at the back of the child’s certificate of live birth; (b) affidavit of acknowledgment; or (c) private handwritten instrument signed by the father with his express recognition of the child as his for the rest of his life. These documents shall be filed before the local civil registry where the birth is registered or, in case of unregistered births, where the child is born. Absent the express acknowledgment from the father, the non-martial child cannot use the father’s surname. How, then, is an admission of paternity filed? The father, mother, or non-marital child of legal age may file the affidavit of admission of paternity or affidavit of acknowledgement. In the case of a private handwritten instrument, the same should be personally filed by the father. If the father is deceased, the private handwritten instrument may be filed by the non-marital child, who is of legal age, or the non-marital child’s mother. Should the local civil registry find the requirements complete and without issue after review, the non-marital child’s new surname shall be annotated on the existing certificate of live birth; it shall not be supplied on the portion intended for the last name. The above rules do not include the assignment of a middle name for a non-marital child. An additional Supplemental Report should be filed to supply the child’s middle name on the certificate of live birth. It must be remembered, however, that the non-marital children’s use of the surname of their father does not necessarily make them marital children in legal contemplation — it plainly permits them to publicly use such surname, e.g., in their identity documents like passport, school and employment records, and other documents. There is a separate process for the conversion of a child’s status from non-marital to marital called legitimation. *** 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 Use of father’s surname, the child’s decision appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Trump committed fraud by inflating value of assets — judge
Donald Trump and his sons Eric and Don Jr. committed fraud by inflating the value of the real estate and financial assets of the Trump Organization for years, a New York judge ruled on Tuesday. The ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron is a setback for the former president ahead of a trial in the civil case due to begin on Monday. New York State Attorney General Letitia James has accused Trump and his two eldest sons of business fraud for allegedly submitting "grossly inflated" numbers to banks and insurers. The lawsuit asserts that they lied to tax collectors, lenders, and insurers for years in a scheme that routinely misstated the value of the organization's properties to enrich themselves. Trump's lawyers had asked the judge to throw out the case ahead of the trial by granting what is known as a summary judgment in his favor. James had also asked for a summary judgment, however, asking that Trump be found liable ahead of the trial and the judge sided with the attorney general. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and the removal of Trump and his sons from the management of the family real estate firm, the Trump Organization. James claims that Trump and associates submitted "grossly inflated" numbers to banks and insurers each year between 2011 and 2021 "to secure and maintain loans and insurance on more favorable terms." They allegedly fraudulently overvalued the net worth of Trump company assets by billions of dollars, resulting in "hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten savings and profits." James has alleged that the overvaluation of Trump's assets was between $1.9 billion and $3.6 billion per year. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has denounced the case as a "witch hunt," calling James, who is a Democrat and Black, "racist." In January, the Trump Organization was fined $1.6 million by a New York judge in a criminal tax and financial fraud case. The 77-year-old twice-impeached Trump also faces federal criminal charges for the mishandling of classified documents and conspiracy charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election results. He also faces state charges for alleged hush money payments in New York and for pressuring state officials to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory in Georgia. Trump was also found liable in a civil trial in May for sexually abusing a one-time magazine columnist in 1996 and for defaming her in comments made last year. The post Trump committed fraud by inflating value of assets — judge 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......»»
Ombudsman finds Antiporda ‘guilty’ of harassment
Former National Irrigation Authority acting administrator Benny Antiporda is once again in hot water. This as the Office of the Ombudsman found Antiporda guilty of subjecting one of his NIA staff members to “harassment” and “oppression” for questioning his policies and activities. Back in November 2022, the Ombudsman also imposed a six-month preventive suspension without pay against Antiporda over an administrative complaint filed against him by several officers and employees of NIA. Saying Antiporda showed “cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination, or excessive use of authority,” the Ombudsman slapped Antiporda with a one-year suspension without pay in the most recent case. According to the Ombudsman, should Antiporda be separated from the service, he should still settle a penalty equivalent to his one-year salary in NIA. The complaint against Antiporda arose from his posting a security detail, turning off the electricity in the complainant’s office, breaching the flexi-time arrangement, and implementing an office lockdown without prior notice, among others. “Government employees are supposed to be well-mannered, civil and considerate in their actuations, not only in their relations with the transacting public but also with their co-workers,” the Ombudsman said in a decision dated 11 September but released only to reporters on Monday. The post Ombudsman finds Antiporda ‘guilty’ of harassment appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Ombudsman finds Antiporda guilty of harassment, oppression of NIA employees
In a decision dated 11 September but released only to reporters on Monday, the Ombudsman found former National Irrigation Administration acting administrator Benny Antiporda guilty of acts of "harassment" and "oppression" toward one of his NIA staff who questioned his policies and activities, which the Ombudsman said showed "cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination, or excessive use of authority." Antiporda was slapped with a one-year suspension without pay. According to the Ombudsman, should Antiporda be separated from the service, he should still settle a penalty equivalent to his one-year salary in NIA. The complaint against Antiporda arose from his questioned actions, such as posting a security detail, turning off the electricity in the complainant’s office, breaching the flexi-time arrangement, and implementing an office lockdown without prior notice, among others. "Government employees are supposed to be well-mannered, civil and considerate in their actuations, not only in their relations with the transacting public, but also with their co-workers," the Ombudsman said. "Respondent Antiporda’s acts failed to live up to the high standards required of a government employee," it added. In November 2022, the Ombudsman also imposed a six-month preventive suspension without pay on Antiporda arising from the administrative complaint filed against him by several officers and employees of NIA. Antiporda was accused of committing "grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, harassment, oppression, and ignorance of the law," all of which were filed separately with the Ombudsman. However, in the latest decision, the Ombudsman dropped other complaints against Antiporda, such as grave misconduct and ignorance of the law, with the court ruling that his actions "do not constitute grave misconduct" and that the case lacked the necessary elements of corruption and obvious intent to violate the law. The post Ombudsman finds Antiporda guilty of harassment, oppression of NIA employees appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
California sues oil giants, alleging climate risks deception
The US state of California sued five of the world's largest oil companies on Friday, alleging the firms caused billions of dollars in damages and misled the public by minimizing the risks from fossil fuels, according to a court filing. It follows numerous other cases brought by US cities, counties, and states against fossil fuel interests over the impact of climate change as well as alleged disinformation campaigns spanning decades. The civil case was filed in a superior court in San Francisco against ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, which is headquartered in California. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, is also a defendant in the case. "Oil and gas company executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively pushing out disinformation on the topic," the 135-page complaint read. "Their deception caused a delayed societal response to global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and natural resources, which continue to unfold each day." The suit seeks the creation of an abatement fund to pay for future damages caused by climate disasters in California, which is on the front lines of climate change-fueled wildfires, flooding and other extreme weather phenomena. "By downplaying the scientific consensus on climate change and emphasizing uncertainty, Defendants hoped to delay any regulatory action that might seek to reduce or control (greenhouse gas) emissions, thereby threatening the industry's profits," the complaint added. Representatives of the defendants did not immediately reply to requests for comment from AFP. "For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us -- covering up the fact that they've long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet," California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement on Friday. "California is taking action to hold big polluters accountable," he added. Since the current wave of environmental litigation against fossil fuel firms began around 2017, the industry has sought to avoid state trials on procedural grounds. That effort received a major blow in May when the US Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in two cases, meaning they could proceed. The lawsuits are modeled on successful cases against Big Tobacco as well as against the pharmaceutical industry over the proliferation of opioids. The post California sues oil giants, alleging climate risks deception appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
California sues oil giants, alleging climate risks deception
The US state of California sued five of the world's largest oil companies on Friday, alleging the firms caused billions of dollars in damages and misled the public by minimizing the risks from fossil fuels, The New York Times reported. It follows numerous other cases brought by US cities, counties and states against fossil fuel interests over the impact of climate change as well as alleged disinformation campaigns spanning decades. The civil case was filed in superior court in San Francisco against Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, which is headquartered in California. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, is also a defendant in the case, The New York Times said. The companies and their allies "intentionally downplayed the risks posed by fossil fuels to the public, even though they understood that their products were likely to lead to significant global warming," dating back to the 1950s, the suit alleged, according to the newspaper. Representatives of the defendants did not immediately reply to requests for comment, it added. The California case seeks the creation of an abatement fund to pay for future damages caused by climate disasters in the state, which is on the front lines of climate change-fueled wildfires, flooding and other extreme weather phenomena. "Oil and gas company executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively pushing out disinformation on the topic," the 135-page complaint reads, according to the Times. "Their deception caused a delayed societal response to global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and natural resources, which continue to unfold each day." Since the current wave of environmental litigation against fossil fuel firms began around 2017, the industry has sought to avoid state trials on procedural grounds. That effort received a major blow in May when the US Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in two cases, meaning they could proceed. The lawsuits are modeled on successful cases against Big Tobacco as well as against the pharmaceutical industry over the proliferation of opioids. The post California sues oil giants, alleging climate risks deception appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»