Friday, June 19, 2015

DISCOVERY PROCEDURES: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - DISCOVERY PROCEDURES: | MVP Law | Philippines





"x x x.

DISCOVERY PROCEDURES:

     Trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-Sc, Pars. I.A. 1.2; 2(E)) (Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing vs. Ley Construction and Development [2006]).

x x x."

Prompt notice by the cardholder to the credit card company of the loss or theft of his card should be enough to relieve the former of any liability occasioned by the unauthorized use of his lost or stolen card.

See - Credit Limit Overload…

THE LAWYER'S POST.





"x x x.

“Prompt notice by the cardholder to the credit card company of the loss or theft of his card should be enough to relieve the former of any liability occasioned by the unauthorized use of his lost or stolen card. The questioned stipulation in this case, which still requires the cardholder to wait until the credit card company has notified all its member-establishments, puts the cardholder at the mercy of the credit card company which may delay indefinitely the notification of its members to minimize if not to eliminate the possibility of incurring any loss from unauthorized purchases. Or, as in this case, the credit card company may for some reason fail to promptly notify its members through absolutely no fault of the cardholder. To require the cardholder to still pay for unauthorized purchases after he has given prompt notice of the loss or theft of his card to the credit card company would simply be unfair and unjust. The Court cannot give its assent to such a stipulation which could clearly run against public policy.”
x x x."

G.R. No. 127246 April 21, 1999, SPOUSES LUIS M. ERMITAÑO and MANUELITA C. ERMITAÑO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND BPI EXPRESS CARD CORP., respondents.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Profile: LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES (LCM Law).




LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES (LCM Law). 

CONTACT: 
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City, Philippines 1740. 
Tel. Nos. 63 2 8725443 and 8462539 (look for staff Primo Cueva - text/call 63 921 2565583). 
Email: 
lcmlaw@gmail.com, cc: mjlasernajr@gmail.com. 
Twitter: 
http://www.twitter.com/lcmlaw_ ph. 
Facebook timeline: http://www.facebook.com/lasernacuevamercaderlawoffices. Facebook page: 
http://www.facebook.com/lcmlaw.ph. 

PROFILE: 
Bar leaders in southern Metro Manila since 1995. 
Prof of Law, Far Eastern Univ. Inst. of Law, Manila, 1985-2006 (retired). 
Scholars of Cocofed, Far Eastern Univ., & Central Bank. 
Degrees: Ll.B. (cum laude), Ll.M., MBA, DBA, and Ph.D. 
Clients are middle-income individuals & enterprises in Metro Manila. 
Founded 1994 by Manuel Laserna Jr.(3rd placer, 1984 bar exams, 90.95%) & Myrna Cueva-Mercader (CPA, Ph.D. Bus., Ph.D. Econ). 
Admitted to the Bar in 1985.

Probable Cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction. The strict validity and merits of a party’s accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and pieces of evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case.

See - Probable Cause: The Strict Validity And Merits Of A Party's Accusation Or Defense, As Well As Admissibility Of Testimonies And Pieces Of Evidence, Are Better Ventilated During The Trial Proper Of The Case. - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

Probable cause, for purposes of filing criminal information, pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to incite a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.⁠1   Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty.⁠2 Probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.  The strict validity and merits of a party’s accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and pieces of evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case.⁠3 
The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function,⁠4  lodged in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation⁠5  on the offended party’s complaint.⁠6 The prosecutor’s ruling is reviewable by the Secretary⁠7 who, as the final determinative authority on the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor’s determination.⁠8  As a rule, the Secretary’s findings are not subject to interference by the courts,⁠9  save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;⁠10  or when he grossly misapprehends facts;⁠11 or acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law; or when he acts outside the contemplation of law.⁠12 
In order to arrive at probable cause, the elements of the crime charged, homicide in this case, should be present.⁠13   Jurisprudence laid out the elements of homicide as: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.⁠14   All of these elements are present in this case, as adequately shown by the affidavits of Edna and her witness, and by the autopsy report.
We agree with the CA that the Secretary, in this case, calibrated the evidentiary weight of the NBI opinion vis-a-vis the autopsy report, as well as Edna’s complaint-affidavit vis-à-vis the affidavit of Jovita, and in so doing, already went into the strict merits of Villanueva’s defenses. We note that the NBI opinion was procured at Villanueva’s instance and was based on the documents and in response to the questions Villanueva posed,⁠15  while Jovita was unable to recall the events that transpired relative to Renato’s death when asked during the preliminary investigation. Whether the alternative scenario on the cause of Renato’s injuries and death (as supported by Jovita’s affidavit and the NBI opinion and which Villanueva proposed by way of defense) is more credible and more likely than the narrations of Edna in her complaint-affidavit, in the affidavit of her witness, and the NBI autopsy report should best be left for the trial court to determine after a full- blown trial on the merits. When the Secretary made a determination based on his own appreciation of the pieces of evidence for and against Villanueva, he effectively assumed the function of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence and, thereby, acted outside his jurisdiction.
x x x."

G.R. No. 190969, January 30, 2013, BARON A. VILLANUEVA AND THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE PETITIONERS, VS. EDNA R. CAPARAS, RESPONDENT. 

Matters of evidence/defense are best left to the trial of the case on its merits.

See - Probable Cause: The Strict Validity And Merits Of A Party's Accusation Or Defense, As Well As Admissibility Of Testimonies And Pieces Of Evidence, Are Better Ventilated During The Trial Proper Of The Case. - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

We agree with the CA that the Secretary, in this case, calibrated the evidentiary weight of the NBI opinion vis-a-vis the autopsy report, as well as Edna’s complaint-affidavit vis-à-vis the affidavit of Jovita, and in so doing, already went into the strict merits of Villanueva’s defenses. 

We note that the NBI opinion was procured at Villanueva’s instance and was based on the documents and in response to the questions Villanueva posed,⁠15  while Jovita was unable to recall the events that transpired relative to Renato’s death when asked during the preliminary investigation. 

Whether the alternative scenario on the cause of Renato’s injuries and death (as supported by Jovita’s affidavit and the NBI opinion and which Villanueva proposed by way of defense) is more credible and more likely than the narrations of Edna in her complaint-affidavit, in the affidavit of her witness, and the NBI autopsy report should best be left for the trial court to determine after a full- blown trial on the merits. 

When the Secretary made a determination based on his own appreciation of the pieces of evidence for and against Villanueva, he effectively assumed the function of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence and, thereby, acted outside his jurisdiction.
x x x."

G.R. No. 190969, January 30, 2013, BARON A. VILLANUEVA AND THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE PETITIONERS, VS. EDNA R. CAPARAS, RESPONDENT. 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

To apply Article 332 to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document would be to mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in that situation.

See - Complex Crime Of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents Not Within Ambit Of Art. 332, Revised Penal Code... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

At the Regional Trial Court, William filed a motion to quash the information. According to him, his relationship with the person allegedly defrauded, his mother-in-law, was an exempting circumstance, citing Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code which states:
ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. – No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. (emphasis supplied)
The trial prosecutor opposed the motion, citing that the death of Zenaida, William’s wife, extinguished the relationship by affinity between Manolita and William.
The RTC granted William’s motion and quashed the information, adopting the theory propounded by William that he is exempted from criminal liability due to his relationship by affinity with Manolita.
On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC decision and dismissed the petition filed by the estate.
The estate represented by Mediatrix is now before the Supreme Court questioning the rulings of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
On of the core issues to be resolved is, whether or not the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document falls within the ambit of crimes covered by Article 332 of the Revised Penal code:
The Supreme Court:
“The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not affected by the absolutory cause provided by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the component crimes of a complex crime for the purpose of negating the existence of that complex crime is to unduly expand the scope of Article 332. In other words, to apply Article 332 to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document would be to mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment as separate charges of estafa and falsification of public document, not as a single charge for the single (complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the property right of a family relation but a paramount public interest.
The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. Thus, the action provided under the said provision simply concerns the private relations of the parties as family members and is limited to the civil aspect between the offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through falsification of a public document, however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Article 332.
In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other. While there may be two component crimes (estafa and falsification of documents), both felonies are animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability. That is the concept of a complex crime. In other words, while there are two crimes, they are treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability.
As opposed to a simple crime where only one juridical right or interest is violated (e.g., homicide which violates the right to life, theft which violates the right to property), a complex crime constitutes a violation of diverse juridical rights or interests by means of diverse acts, each of which is a simple crime in itself. Since only a single criminal intent underlies the diverse acts, however, the component crimes are considered as elements of a single crime, the complex crime. This is the correct interpretation of a complex crime as treated under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
In the case of a complex crime, therefore, there is a formal (or ideal) plurality of crimes where the same criminal intent results in two or more component crimes constituting a complex crime for which there is only one criminal liability. (The complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document falls under this category.) This is different from a material (or real) plurality of crimes where different criminal intents result in two or more crimes, for each of which the accused incurs criminal liability. The latter category is covered neither by the concept of complex crimes nor by Article 48.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the formal plurality of crimes (concursus delictuorum or concurso de delitos) gives rise to a single criminal liability and requires the imposition of a single penalty:
Although [a] complex crime quantitatively consists of two or more crimes, it is only one crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed and the two or more crimes constituting the same are more conveniently termed as component crimes. (emphasis supplied)
In [a] complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one criminal intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one.
For this reason, while a conviction for estafa through falsification of public document requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of public documents.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that, to be criminally liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, the liability for estafa should be considered separately from the liability for falsification of public document. Such approach would disregard the nature of a complex crime and contradict the letter and spirit of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It would wrongly disregard the distinction between formal plurality and material plurality, as it improperly treats the plurality of crimes in the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document as a mere material plurality where the felonies are considered as separate crimes to be punished individually.”
x x x."

G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED BY MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILLIAM SATO, RESPONDENTS.

Prescriptive periods; when liberally construed.

See - Our Law On Agrarian Reform Is A Legislated Promise To Emancipate Poor Farm Families From The Bondage Of The Soil... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote economic and social stability.  Being a social legislation, it must be interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, which is ‘to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers’ and to make them ‘more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society[7]’.


At any rate, respondent cannot legally invoke the strict application of the rules on prescription because the failure of petitioner to immediately file the Petition was due to its own maneuvers.[8]  This Court should not allow respondent to profit from its threats and intimidation.  Besides, if we subscribe to respondent’s ratiocination that petitioner’s cause of action had already prescribed, it would lead to an absurd situation wherein a tenant who was unlawfully deprived of his landholding would be barred from pursuing his rightful claim against the transgressor.[9]


We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause – free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities.  In the interest of its equity jurisdiction, the Court may disregard procedural lapses so that a case may be resolved on its merits.  Rules of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice.  Hence, the Court may opt to apply the Rules liberally to resolve substantial issues raised by the parties.


Rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very ends.  Indeed, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court.  A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided.[10]


“It is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.”[11] It must also be emphasized that “[t]he statute of limitations has been devised to operate primarily against those who slept on their rights and not against those desirous to act but cannot do so for causes beyond their control.”[12]


Petitioner’s tenure on the farm should be deemed uninterrupted since he could not set foot thereon.  And if he could not make the required payments to Chioco or the Land Bank of the Philippines, petitioner should not be faulted.  And, since his tenure is deemed uninterrupted, any benefit or advantage from the land should accrue to him as well.


Our law on agrarian reform is a legislated promise to emancipate poor farm families from the bondage of the soil.  P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in the exact same spirit, with mechanisms which hope to forestall a reversion to the antiquated and inequitable feudal system of land ownership.  It aims to ensure the continued possession, cultivation and enjoyment by the beneficiary of the land that he tills which would certainly not be possible where the former owner is allowed to reacquire the land at any time following the award – in contravention of the government’s objective to emancipate tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil.[13]

x x x."


G.R. No. 180476, June 26, 2013, RAYMUNDO CODERIAS, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARLON M. CODERIAS, PETITIONER, VS. ESTATE OF JUAN CHIOCO, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, DR. RAUL R. CARAG, RESPONDENT.



Journalists hit solons for ‘bullying’ reporter in bribe story | Inquirer News

See - Journalists hit solons for ‘bullying’ reporter in bribe story | Inquirer News





"x x x.

Herrera invoked the Sotto Law during the hearing on why she could not be forced to reveal her sources.

According to the NUJP, Section 1 of Republic Act 53 or the Sotto Law states that “The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.”

The NUJP said the law was “precisely enacted to protect sources of reporters and the journalists themselves against any attempt to force them to identify sources who have offered information on the condition of anonymity.”

“We do not see how anyone in the supposedly august chamber can invoke national security in trying to force Ms. Herrera to divulge any confidential information. Bullying and intimidating Herrera is forcing her to violate one of the basic tenets of journalism on the protection of confidentiality of sources,” the media group said.

The group said the threat of lawmakers to cite Herrera in contempt 
for refusing to reveal her sources set “a precedent on House investigations involving journalists and poses a threat to the integrity of the media and journalists.”

x x x."


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/699053/journalists-hit-solons-for-bullying-reporter-in-bribe-story#ixzz3dJ6i8VFc
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Dishonest lawyer

See - A Lawyer Who Drafts A Contract Must See To It That The Agreement Faithfully And Clearly Reflects The Agreement Of The Contracting Parties... - The Lawyer's Post





" x x x.

Respondent dealt with complainant with bad faith, falsehood, and deceit when he entered into the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” dated December 2, 1981 with the latter.  He made it appear that the property was covered by TCT No. T-662 under his name, even giving complainant the owner’s copy of the said certificate of title, when the truth is that the said TCT had already been cancelled some nine years earlier by TCT No. T-3211 in the name of PNB.  He did not even care to correct the wrong statement in the deed when he was subsequently issued a new copy of TCT No. T-7235 on January 4, 1982[4], or barely a month after the execution of the said deed.  All told, respondent clearly committed an act of gross dishonesty and deceit against complainant.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Under Canon 1, a lawyer is not only mandated to personally obey the laws and the legal processes, he is moreover expected to inspire respect and obedience thereto.  On the other hand, Rule 1.01 states the norm of conduct that is expected of all lawyers[5].
Any act or omission that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is “unlawful.”  “Unlawful” conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element[6].
To be “dishonest” means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be untrustworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straightforwardness.  On the other hand, conduct that is “deceitful” means as follows:
[Having] the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. In order to be deceitful, the person must either have knowledge of the falsity or acted in reckless and conscious ignorance thereof, especially if the parties are not on equal terms, and was done with the intent that the aggrieved party act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance of the false statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his injury[7].
The actions of respondent in connection with the execution of the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” clearly fall within the concept of unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.  They violate Article 19 of the Civil Code.  They show a disregard for Section 63 of the Land Registration Act.  They also reflect bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit on respondent’s part.  Thus, respondent deserves to be sanctioned.
x x x."

EN BANC A.C. No. 4697, November 25, 2014, FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT. 


A.C. NO. 4728, FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT.




In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.

See - A Lawyer Who Drafts A Contract Must See To It That The Agreement Faithfully And Clearly Reflects The Agreement Of The Contracting Parties... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

Given the foregoing, the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two years, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, is proper.
The Court, however, will not adopt the recommendation of the IBP to order respondent to return the sum of P15,000.00 he received from complainant under the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase.”  This is a civil liability best determined and awarded in a civil case rather than the present administrative cases.
In Roa v. Moreno[12], the Court pronounced that “[i]n disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.  Our only concern is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability.  Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.”  While the respondent lawyer’s wrongful actuations may give rise at the same time to criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities, each must be determined in the appropriate case; and every case must be resolved in accordance with the facts and the law applicable and the quantum of proof required in each.  Section 5,[13] in relation to Sections 1[14] and 2[15] Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, such as the ones at bar, only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases.  Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion[16].
The Court notes that based on the same factual antecedents as the present administrative cases, complainant instituted a criminal case for estafa against respondent, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3112-A, before the MTC.  When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action[17].   Unless the complainant waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then his civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the estafa committed by respondent is deemed instituted with Criminal Case No. 3112-A.  The civil liability that complainant may recover in Criminal Case No. 3112-A includes restitution; reparation of the damage caused him; and/or indemnification for consequential damages[18], which may already cover the P15,000.00 consideration complainant had paid for the subject property.
x x x."

EN BANC A.C. No. 4697, November 25, 2014, FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT. 


When may local executives be allowed to hire private lawyers to represent/assist them in suits.

See - In Instances Where Personal Liability On The Part Of Local Government Officials Is Sought, They May Properly Secure The Services Of Private Counsel... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.



The present case stemmed from Special Civil Action No. 2002-0019 for mandamus and damages.⁠1  The damages sought therein could have resulted in personal liability, hence, petitioner cannot be deemed to have been improperly represented by private counsel.⁠2 In Alinsug v. RTC Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental,⁠3  the Court ruled that in instances like the present case where personal liability on the part of local government officials is sought, they may properly secure the services of private counsel, explaining:
It can happen that a government official, ostensibly acting in his official capacity and sued in that capacity, is later held to have exceeded his authority. On the one hand, his defense would have then been underwritten by the people’s money which ordinarily should have been his personal expense. On the other hand, personal liability can attach to him without, however, his having had the benefit of assistance of a counsel of his own choice. In Correa v. CFI, the Court held that in the discharge of governmental functions, ‘municipal corporations are responsible for the acts of its officers, except if and when, and only to the extent that, they have acted by authority of the law, and in conformity with the requirements thereof.
In such instance, this Court has sanctioned the representation by private counsel. In one case, We held that where rigid adherence to the law on representation of local officials in court actions could deprive a party of his right to redress for a valid grievance, the hiring of a private counsel would be proper. And inAlbuera v. Torres, this Court also said that a provincial governor sued in his official capacity may engage the services of private counsel when “the complaint contains other allegations and a prayer for moral damages, which, if due from the defendants, must be satisfied by them in their private capacity.⁠4(Citations omitted)
Consequently Attys. Fandiño and Saulon had the authority to represent petitioner at the initial stages of the litigation and this authority continued even up to his appeal⁠5  and the filing of the petition forcertiorari with the CA respecting the execution of the RTC judgment.⁠6   It was therefore an error for the CA to have dismissed the said petition for certiorari on the ground of unauthorized representation.
x x x."

G.R. No. 191691, January 16, 2013, ROMEO A. GONTANG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF GAINZA, CAMARINES SUR, VS. PETITIONER, ENGR. CECILIA ALAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Flight attendants win gender discrimination case vs PAL

See  - Flight attendants win gender discrimination case vs PAL





"x x x.

In 2004, a group of female flight attendants filed a gender discrimination case against national carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL). After 11 years, the Makati Regional Trial Court finally ruled in their favor.
The class suit stems from PAL’s policy which “compulsorily retired” stewardesses at age 55, while stewards could retire at 60. The provision is part of PAL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, though no reason was provided for the discrepancy.
Meanwhile, flight attendants hired after the year 2000 are required to retire at an even younger age of 40. However, in management positions, the retirement age for both women and men is 65.
In May 2015, the court declared PAL’s provision null and void, awarding around 1,000 affected flight attendants P100,000 each.
x x x.
Kapunan called the case a “legal pingpong,” stretching for years at the expense of women. The case was tossed from the lower court to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and back. At first, PAL wanted the issue to remain a “labor case,” but Kapunan insisted that this was a case of gender-based discrimination.
x x x.
In 2010, the Philippine Commission on Women also urged the flag carrier to end its "discriminatory policies."
Victory for all Filipino women
Kapunan hopes that PAL would follow the court decision and no longer file a motion for reconsideration. She calls the case a "huge victory" for everyone who has been "deprived of employment and robbed of their dignity" as a result of gender-based discrimination.
x x x.
Female PAL flight attendants experienced other forms of gender-based discrimination in the past. In the 1970s, they were discouraged from getting married and getting pregnant.
"Some had to resign because they got pregnant," said former flight attendant Dolores Panas. She was among the first in PAL to experience paid maternity leaves in the late 1970s.
Rappler tried contacting PAL. It has yet to release an official statement on the development. – Rappler.com.
x x x."

9th Arbitration Training on "The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration" to be held on 13-16 July 2015 - PHIL. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER, INC. (PDRCI)




"x x x.
We are pleased to invite you to participate in our 9th Arbitration Training on "The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration" to be held on 13-16 July 2015 at the BSA Multi-purpose Hall located at the 3rd Floor, Commerce and Industry Plaza Building, 1030 Campus Avenue cor. Park Avenue, McKinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

The training program is designed to equip the participants with the knowledge and skills in arbitrating commercial disputes.  Our resource speakers were selected from among the recognized experts in the field of commercial arbitration in the Philippines.  In addition to listening to lectures on the various aspects of commercial arbitration, participants will be given an opportunity to participate in a mock arbitration.

Participants who will successfully pass the written assessment to be given immediately after the training will be included in the roster of PDRCI-trained arbitrators.

The training fee is Php25,000.00  per participant, inclusive of meals and training materials.   We will limit the number of participants to a maximum of 50, so please register early.  Please confirm your participation early so we can send you the Registration Form.  Those who will register and pay early may avail of an early bird discount.

For more information, please call the PDRCI Secretariat at 555-0798 or 822-4102 or contact us by email.

Regards,


Donemark Joseph L. Calimon
Chair, Committee on Education and Training
Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc.
3rd Floor, Commerce and Industry Plaza Building
1030 Campus Avenue corner Park Avenue
McKinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City


---
PHIL. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER, INC. (PDRCI)
3rd Floor, Commerce and Industry Plaza (PCCI Building)
1030 Campus Ave.
 cor. Park Ave., McKinley Town Center
Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City
Phone:  555-0798  Telefax:  822-4102

x x x."

Expanded power of judicial review

See - Weak pillar | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com





"x x x.

With only a year left in P-Noy’s term, and the possibility that he may spend his days after the presidency fending off lawsuits for official acts during his days in power, he seems to have backed off from squabbling with the Supreme Court.
I know people from several sectors who agreed with his complaint about “judicial overreach” – although he blunted the impact by making it a personal thing, whining, in so many words, that the SC was effectively curtailing his powers.
The SC is taking on anything and everything that comes its way, including highly technical issues where it lacks the expertise to render judgment. It makes our regulatory bodies largely useless – everything goes to the SC anyway for review.
This means a heavy caseload for the high tribunal, and consequently a long wait for many final decisions to be handed down.
That long wait can wreak havoc on business plans. Guilty persons who remain free even after conviction by a lower court will find many opportunities to permanently escape punishment during the long wait for final judgment. Slow justice encourages speculation on court outcomes, and is the biggest reason why (as Pinoys like to put it) jumping to conclusions is a national sport.
In electoral contests, the lack of a final ruling on guilt or innocence has allowed rapists, plunderers, murderers and other felons to run for public office, serve and finish their term in case of victory, and even serve additional terms. It has allowed candidates accused of wrongdoing to cry political persecution (often with basis).
Like the slow resolution of electoral protests, which encourages poll cheating, the snail-paced administration of justice encourages criminal impunity.
Ideally, any legal case questioning the qualifications of a candidate for public office should be settled long before election day. This rarely happens in our country. In the case of Joseph Estrada’s seeking re-election as president in 2010, the SC even shirked its duty, refusing to rule on the case and arguing that his defeat had rendered the issue moot.
In many other matters, the SC readily dips its fingers.
*   *   *
Several justices have told me that the SC is merely performing its duties as defined under the Constitution. P-Noy is right – the judiciary was given sweeping powers by his mother’s Constitution.
One particular clause, which was not present in the country’s previous Constitutions, ensures that courts of justice can take on anything brought before them, including business disputes and regulatory matters. Justices told me that this is the provision in Article 8, Section 1, declaring: “Judicial power includes the duty… to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
Justices and judges can exercise restraint in taking on cases that may involve “grave abuse of discretion,” but they generally don’t. Some probably worry that they might be accused of dereliction of duty. Others have more self-serving reasons: that all-encompassing clause has led to a lucrative business in issuing temporary restraining orders. Each TRO can fetch several hundred thousands to millions of pesos. There’s big money to be made from justice delayed.
P-Noy, who must be aware of that constitutional provision, has said he might support Charter change to rationalize judicial powers. But every time it looks like there is a serious Cha-cha effort, he announces that he may seek a second term. Surely he knows it’s the surest way to kill any Cha-cha attempt.
Perhaps the SC, which supervises the judiciary, can act on its own, without the need for Cha-cha, to reduce its own caseload and compel lower courts to speed up proceedings. There must be structural reforms that can be implemented to discourage delays.
Rules can also be passed to penalize magistrates, prosecutors and lawyers alike who delay litigation.
Many countries, including several in Asia such as Singapore and South Korea, are renowned for swift and efficient justice. It’s no coincidence that these countries are among the most competitive and prosperous.
An efficient judicial system is one of the pillars of a strong and progressive republic. If our democracy is a mess, one of the reasons is the weakness of the justice system.
x x x."