Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

I have gone through the article.

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Rating

Showing Page:
1/14
AZCUNA
UPDATES
1) The Comelec en banc cannot now be declared to have
committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner
candidate for Representatative because (1) the Comelec
decision is already final, the petition here having been filed after
five days from notice, and (2) Comelec still has jurisdiction over
the case since petitioner had not yet assumed office. HRET's
jurisdiction sets in when the candidate has been proclaimed, has
taken oath and has assumed office.
(Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, June 25,
2013. (En Banc, Perez, J.)
(The proclamation of a winning candidate divests the
Comelec of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the
time of the proclamation. (Limkaichong v. Comelec, G.R. Nos.
178831-32, etc., April 1, 2009, 583 SCRA 1). HRET rules count
the 15-day period to file protests and quo warranto from the
time of the proclamation, Rule 16 & 17. Dissenting Opinion of
Brion, J.).
Furthermore, Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
in finding petitioner to have lost and abandoned her domicile of
origin when she became a naturalized American citizen.
(Ibid.,Brion, J.)
2) Renunciation of US citizenship followed by repeated use
of US passport shows lack of abandonment of US citizenship.
(Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013.
(Resolution En Banc, C.J.).
3) Bigamy is commited where the first marriage still existed
when the second marriage was contracted, even if the first
marriage is later declared void.
(Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013. (3rd Div.,
Peralta, J.)
4) Decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory.
The rule of procedure in the Ombudsman office is that
where the respondent is absolved of the charge, or where
respondent is convicted and the penalty imposed is public
censure or reprimand or suspension of not more than one month
or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision is final,
executory and unappealable.
In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the
Court of Appeals but the appeal shall not stop the decision from
being executory.
If the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent
wins such appeal, respondent shall be considered as having been
under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and
such other emoluments not received by reason of the suspension
or removal.
(Office of the Ombudsman v. Ernesto M. Echavez, et al., G.R.
No. 172206, July 3, 2013 (3rd Div., Peralta, J.)
5) The rule in redemption of properties is that it is not
sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests a desire to
do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an
actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the
exercise of the right to repurchase. (See, Art. 1616, Civil Code).
Signifying their intention to avail of the incentive scheme
(liberalizing payments and terms) did not amount to an exercise
of redemption precluding the bank from making the public sale.
(Note by ASA: The liberalized incentive scheme program
was to expire on December 31, 1988. The bank sold the
properties on November 4, 1988. Yet, petitioners' claim that the
sale was premature was rejected by the SC on the ground that
the evidence (a letter) did not show that the bank had
unequalifiedly represented to petitioners that it had extended the
redemption period to December 31, 1988. The letter to
petitioners had said both that the incentive scheme [open to all
owners of foreclosed properties] would expire December 31,
1988, and that their own redemption was up to April 21,
1988. For me, the letter of the bank was misleading.)
(Spouses Hojas v. Philippine Amanah Bank, G.R. No. 193453,
June 5, 2013. (3rd Div., Mendoza, J.)
6) An unregistered deed of sale has an inferior probative
value to a title certificate.
(Meralco v. Heirs of Spouses Deloy, G.R. No. 192893, June 5,
2013, (3rd Div., Mendoza, J.)
7) A broker has the right to the agreed commission even if
the owner revoked his authority and directly negotiated with the
buyer whom the owner met thru the broker's efforts. (Infante v.
Cunanan, 93 Phil. 691, 695 [1953]).
As for the fact that the properties were eventually sold for
less than the original asking price, that was within the owner's
discretion, decided unilaterally without consulting the
broker. Thus, the owner should be deemed to have waived its
own minimum price requirement.
(Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp. v. Tuscan Realty,
Inc., G.R. No. 195481, July 10, 2013. (3rd Div., Abad, J.)
8) When is a person engaged in labor-only contracting? What
is its effect?
Any person who undertakes to supply workers to an
employer is engaged in labor-only contracting where such
person:
(1) Does not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other
materials, and,
(2) The workers recruited and placed by such person are
performing activities which are directly related to the principal

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/14
[activity] or operations of the employer in which the workers are
habitually employed.
Such act (labor-only contracting) is prohibited and the
person acting as contractor shall be considered merely as an
agent of the employer and shall be responsible to the workers in
the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly
employed by him. (Sec. 8, DOLE Dept. Order No. 10, Series of
1997).
(First Phil. Industrial Corp. v. Raquel M. Calimbas, G.R. No.
179256, July 10, 2013. (3rd Div., Peralta, J.)
9) Fair market value of land taken for agrarian reform is
reckoned as of the time of the taking.
(Heirs of Spouses Tria v. Land Bank, G.R. No. 170245, July 1,
2013. (3rd Div., Perez, J.)
10) The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory
judgment may be executed by motion within 5 years from the
date of its entry or by action after the lapse of 5 years and before
prescription sets in. This Court, however, has allowed
exceptions, when execution may be made by motion after 5
years, where the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the
judgment obligor and/or incurred for his benefit or
advantage. The rationale for the rule is to prevent parties from
sleeping on their rights. In the case of exception, the party
moving cannot be said to have slept on his rights.
(RCBC v. Serra, G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013. (2nd Div.,
Carpio, J.)
11) The rule is that a proper special procedings is required to
declare heirship and the issue cannot be ventilated in a suit for
recovery of property. Exceptions:
(1) For practical reasons, when it appeared that no other
property was involved in the inheritance and the parties in the
civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court
and already presented their evidence regarding the heirship and
the RTC consequently rendered judgment thereon, or
(2) When a special proceeding had been instituted but had
been finally closed and terminated, and, hence, cannot be re-
opened.
(Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon v. Ponteras, G.R. No. 198680, July
8, 2013. (Resolution En banc, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
12) Relaxation of procedural rules by way of exceptions to
finality and entry of judgments (the doctrine of immutability of
judgments) are allowed by reversing judgments and recalling
their entries “in the interest of substantial justice and where
special and compelling reasons exist for such actions.” (Apo
Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank, G.R. No. 164195, Oct. 12, 2010, 632
SCRA 727, 760 citing Equitable Banking Corp. v. Sadac, G.R.
No. 164772, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 380, 416-417).
Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Rosa Reyes
Cenando, G.R. No. 194242, June 19, 2013. (2nd Div., Perlas-
Bernabe, J.)
1) Removal of chairs in the bottling plant of Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phils., Inc. not violative of labor laws.
1. Law requires chairs only for women workers. In this
case, all operators were men.
2. Removal of chairs was done in good faith, to increase
efficiency and prevent operators from falling asleep on the job,
and was compensated by reduced operating hours and increase
of the break periods.
3. Nature of the work called for moving constantly while
working, so the chairs were not necessary.
4. Prolonged sitting at work poses health hazards, per
scientific studies.
(Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.-
Cebu Plant, G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013. (3rd Div.,
Mendoza, J.)
2) The doctrine of indefeseability of Torrens title does not
extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.
In this case: petitioners-buyers acted in bad faith: (1) seller
did not have possession of subject property; (2) during the sale,
seller did not have the owner's duplicate copy of the title; (3)
there were existing permanent improvements on the land; (4)
respondents were in actual possession of the land.
(Sps. Esmeraldo D. Vallido, et al. v. Sps. Elmer Pono, et al.,
G.R. No. 200173, April 15, 2013. (3rd Div., Mendoza, J.)
3) An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom
no final determination can be had of the action.
Non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for
dismissal of an action. The court should have directed petitioner
to implead the indispensable party. In case of refusal, then the
court can dismiss the complaint for plaintiff's failure to comply
with the order.
(Heirs of Faustino Mesina v. Heirs of Domingo Fian, G.R.
No. 201816, April 8, 2013. (3rd Div., Velasco, Jr., J.)
4) An amicable settlement reached after a barangay
conciliation, per the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law,
has the force and effect of a final judgment of the court,
Exception
When repudiated or a petition to nullify it is filed before
the proper city of municipal court in 10 days from its date.
Enforcement

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/14

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 14 pages?
Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

AZCUNA UPDATES 1)       The Comelec en banc cannot now be declared to have committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner candidate for Representatative because (1) the Comelec decision is already final, the petition here having been filed after five days from notice, and (2) Comelec still has jurisdiction over the case since petitioner had not yet assumed office.  HRET's jurisdiction sets in when the candidate has been proclaimed, has taken oath and has assumed office.   (Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013. (En Banc, Perez, J.)           (The proclamation of a winning candidate divests the Comelec of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. (Limkaichong v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, etc., April 1, 2009, 583 SCRA 1).  HRET rules count the 15-day period to file protests and quo warranto from the time of the proclamation, Rule 16 & 17. Dissenting Opinion of Brion, J.).              Furthermore, Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner to have lost and abandoned her domicile of origin when she became a naturalized American citizen. (Ibid.,Brion, J.)     2)       Renunciation of US citizenship followed by repeated use of US passport shows lack of abandonment of US citizenship.   (Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013. (Resolution En Banc, C.J.).       3)       Bigamy is commited where th ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great content here. Definitely a returning customer.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4