Bingbing Wanders - Travels & Tips, Tipid Hacks, Food Reviews, Tips, Top Picks, Tech Guides, Programming Guides, Gaming Guides, Law School Notes and many more random stuffs we can think of and share!
  • Home
  • Travels
  • Food
  • Life
  • Software Engineering
    • Tech Guide
  • Law School Notes
    • Civil Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Remedial Law
    • Labor Law
    • All Notes
  • About Us
Home
Travels
Food
Life
Software Engineering
    Tech Guide
Law School Notes
    Civil Law
    Commercial Law
    Remedial Law
    Labor Law
    All Notes
About Us
Bingbing Wanders - Travels & Tips, Tipid Hacks, Food Reviews, Tips, Top Picks, Tech Guides, Programming Guides, Gaming Guides, Law School Notes and many more random stuffs we can think of and share!
  • Home
  • Travels
  • Food
  • Life
  • Software Engineering
    • Tech Guide
  • Law School Notes
    • Civil Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Remedial Law
    • Labor Law
    • All Notes
  • About Us
Browsing Tag
case digest
Administrative Law•Political Law•Public Officers Law

Renato B. Padilla And Maria Louisa Perez-Padilla vs. Commission On Audit;

January 30, 2023 by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 244815, February 02, 2021.

FACTS:

In 2012, the PICCI Board of Directors (BOD) approved the grant of PBB for the year 2012 to all PICCI employees at P10,000.00 each or in the total amount of P840,000.00. The PBB was given in recognition of the successful hosting of the events at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).  The ATL and the SA issued the ND disallowing the payment of the PBB and declared that it constitutes an irregular transaction under COA Circular No. 2012-003. They ordered the settlement of the disallowed amount. 

PICCI maintained the following arguments: 

  1. PICCI is not covered by E.O. No. 80 and its implementing guidelines since its parent company, the BSP, enjoys fiscal autonomy under Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7653;
  2. PICCI is not within the jurisdiction of the DBM since it does not derive its budget from the GAA, but from the BSP
  3. The COA failed to show “dishonest purpose” or “moral obliquity” so as to constitute bad faith on the part of the petitioners when they approved the payment and certified the availability of funds and completeness of supporting documents for the grant of the PBB.

The COA agreed with the COA-CGS that as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BSP, the PICCI’s budget is subject to DBM’s review.  The COA reminded that the disbursement of public funds must always conform to and comply with the existing rules and regulations, to which business judgment rule must yield. It rejected the petitioners’ claim of good faith and concluded that the petitioners are presumed to have knowledge of the legal infirmities in the grant of said bonus.

ISSUES: 

  1. Whether or not the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that E.O. No. 80 and its implementing guidelines apply to PICCI.
  2. Whether or not the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it found that the petitioners did not act in good faith when they approved and/or certified the grant of the PBB.

HELD: 

1. The PICCI is not covered by E.O. No. 80. The PICCI is a government corporation, wholly-owned by the BSP, that manages and operates the PICC, the premiere facility in hosting for local and international conventions, meetings, exhibitions, and social events.

The fiscal autonomy of the BSP accentuates its role as the country’s independent central authority. The MB then is granted the authority to adopt an annual budget for and authorize such expenditures by the BSP as are in the interest of its effective administration and operations in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. Since the MB adopts an annual budget for the BSP and, as a matter of course, the PICCI, it is incongruous, if not absurd, to place the BSP under the jurisdiction of the DBM and subject its budget to the DBM’s review and approval.

While generally, GOCCs, including government instrumentalities exercising corporate powers and government financial institutions, fall under the jurisdiction of the GCG, the BSP and its subsidiary PICCI are unequivocally excluded from the GCG’s authority. But this is not to say that the BSP and its subsidiary PICCI necessarily come under the jurisdiction of the DBM. To the mind of the Court, we would be trampling on the BSP’s fiscal and administrative autonomy if we go by such logic.

2. YES. There is no showing that the grant of the PBB strained the government coffers in this case. The PICCI was issued an ND for failure to comply with the conditions imposed in the implementing guidelines of E.O. No. 80, when it need not subscribe to said E.O. in the first place. Hence, the petitioners, as approving and certifying officers, cannot be held civilly liable for the PBB released to the PICCI employees.

Share:
Reading time: 3 min
Political Law•Public Officers Law

Re: Letter Dated March 9, 2020 of Department of Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III, MD, MSC.;

by Vala No Comments

A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC

FACTS:

The instant administrative matter stemmed from the Blacklisting Order dated 20 May 2019 issued by the Department of Health (DOH) against JBros Construction Corporation (JBROS) for alleged irregularities and failure to deliver on Phase II of its “Barangay Health Stations Project.” JBROS contested the blacklisting order by filing separate petitions in two (2) Regional Trial Courts, with said courts issuing contrasting orders.

First, JBROS filed a Petition for Certiorari with application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Status Quo Ante Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the RTC of Manila. Presiding Judge Renato Z. Encisco denied the prayer of JBROS for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. JBROS withdrew the case.

JBROS refiled the case designating it as a “Petition for Interim Measure of Protection in Aid of Arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (R.A. No. 9285)” with an urgent motion for ex parte issuance of a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order of Protection (TROP). The case was raffled to Branch 27, RTC, Manila. Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso issued a writ of preliminary injunction directing the DOH to desist from implementing the termination of the contract, recall the blacklisting order and submit a Delisting Order to the GPPB notifying it of the delisting of JBROS. The DOH, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has since filed a Motion for Inhibition and a Motion for Reconsideration. 

OCA found sufficient grounds to make Judge Soriaso administratively liable when she issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the earlier dismissal order of Judge Enciso in violation of the doctrine of judicial stability and her failure to recognize that JBROS had committed forum shopping. 

Judge Soriaso disavowed any liability to the charge of violation of forum shopping claiming that the two petitions, the one filed before the sala of Judge Enciso and the other in her sala, were two different cases that do not preclude one another, thereby concluding that no violation was made. Also, Judge Soriaso avers she did not violate the doctrine of judicial stability when she took cognizance of the special proceeding, the civil case before Judge Enciso being already dismissed; thus no outstanding order was contradicted by her grant of the writ of preliminary injunction. Lastly, she raises good faith and argues that she did not know of the existence of the case filed before the sala of Judge Enciso and the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was based on the facts presented during the hearing.

ISSUE: 

Whether Judge Soriaso be made administratively liable for violating the doctrine of judicial stability as well as the rule on forum shopping.

HELD: 

YES. The doctrine of judicial stability or the doctrine of non­interference states that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale for the same is founded on the concept of jurisdiction – verily, a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. Here, if Judge Soriaso had just heeded the information provided by the DOH regarding the existence of the earlier decision of Judge Enciso, she would have been more circumspect in the eventual issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction realizing the ruse propagated by JBROS to get a favorable judgment.

Jurisprudentially, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.  Here, while the nomenclature used was different, both cases seek the same outcome. Also, both cases involve the same parties. Lastly, the same evidence is required to prove both cases. The OCA is, therefore, correct in finding Judge Soriaso guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the rule on forum shopping and the doctrine of judicial stability.

The Court resolves to impose a fine amounting to Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) for gross ignorance of the rules of procedure and another Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for violating Administrative Circular No. 7-99.

Share:
Reading time: 3 min
Election Law•Political Law

Governor Edgardo Tallado vs Commission on Elections;

by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 246679, June 11, 2021.

FACTS: 

The respondents filed their respective motions for reconsideration impugning the 2019 Decision of Supreme Court and argued that 

  1. The Court erred in ruling that Tallado’s removal constitutes as valid interruption of his term sufficient to break the three-term limit rule imposed on local candidates. They point out that the petitioner’s resort to appeal and the eventual modification of the administrative penalty imposed on him shows the lack of permanence of his ouster as governor and should be insufficient to warrant an interruption of his term. 
  2. Respondents urge the Court to consider his absence in office as preventive suspension, as the Ombudsman (OMB) Rules provide.
  3. They claim that for the Court to allow such construction to continue would reward corrupt and unscrupulous politicians to escape the grasp of the three-term prohibition. 

ISSUES: 

1. Whether the orders of dismissal against the petitioner did not create a permanent, but only a temporary, vacancy

2. Whether the Court’s construction would reward corrupt politicians who will perpetuate their term by escaping the constitutional term limits.

HELD: 

The Court DENIES all motions for reconsideration for lack of merit.

1.  NO.  When an elective local public officer is administratively dismissed by the 0MB and his penalty subsequently modified to another penalty, like herein petitioner, the period of dismissal cannot just be nonchalantly dismissed as a  period for preventive suspension considering that, in fact, his term is effectively interrupted. During said period, petitioner cannot claim to be Governor as his title is  stripped of him by the 0MB despite the pendency of his appeal. Neither does he exercise the power of the office. Said title and power are already passed to the Vice Governor. He also cannot claim that the exercise of his power is merely suspended since it is  not.

Under Section 44 of the LGC, a permanent vacancy arises whenever an elective local officicl;l fills a higher-vacant office, or refuses to assume office, or fails to qualify, or dies, or is removed from office, or voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. In contrast, Section 46 of the LGC enumerates as resulting in a temporary vacancy in the office of the local chief executive leave of absence, travel abroad, and suspension from office. Although Section 46 of the LGC specifically states that the causes of a temporary vacancy are not limited to such circumstances, what is evident is that the enumeration therein share something in common, which is that there is a definite term to be re-assumed. However, the petitioner’s dismissals, even if still not final, were not akin to the instances enumerated in Section 46 of the LGC because the loss of his title to the office denied him the expectancy to re-assume his term.

In the 2019 Decision, dismissal orders of the OMB against petitioner served as permanent removal from office and was not merely temporary. From his dismissal until the Court of Appeals’ modification of his penalty to suspension, petitioner neither had title nor powers to wield as governor of Camarines Norte.

2. NO. The Court’s conclusion is but an application of established jurisprudential concepts and was never intended to reward corrupt politicians who escape dismissal. The OMB ‘s dismissal order is immediately executory and, once executed, the public officer ceases to have title for the time being. Hence, it  should be considered as an interruption of his term. The fact that the public official is  not an ideal one, considering his administrative baggage, does not deprive him of the law’s application.

Imposition of an administrative penalty does not automatically disqualify a public officer from running for public office. Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code does not disqualify a person from running even if he was previously administratively sanctioned.

Lastly, the Court’s construction cannot be construed as a  reward for corrupt politicians as it does not guarantee their prolonged grips on power. It must be remembered that they are still subject to competitive and recurring democratic elections wherein the people decide their political fate. It is presumptuous to say that upon the Court’s decision, public officials would automatically claim their stakes in certain government positions for the foreseeable future. With or without the application of the three-term limit rule, their political futures are still uncertain.

Share:
Reading time: 3 min
Evidence•Law School Notes•Remedial Law

Chan vs. Chan

by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 179786. July 24, 2013

FACTS:

Josielene Lara Chan (Josielene) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny), the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and the award of custody of their children to her. Josielene claimed that Johnny failed to care for and support his family and that a psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs.
Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records of Johnny’s confinement, which records she wanted to present in court as evidence in support of her action to have their marriage declared a nullity. Respondent Johnny resisted her request for subpoena, however, invoking the privileged character of those records under Section 24(c), Rule 130. 
Josielene claims that  the hospital records subject of this case are not privileged since it is the “testimonial” evidence of the physician that may be regarded as privileged.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the privileged character of the physician-patient communication does not cover the hospital records, but only the examination of the physician at the trial.(2) Whether or not the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum shall be denied covering Johnny’s hospital records on the ground that these are covered by the privileged character of the physician-patient communication.

HELD:

(1) NO. To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records — the results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him — would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent. Physicians memorialize all this information in the patient’s records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.

(2) YES. The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient’s consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Share:
Reading time: 2 min
Page 1 of 541234»102030...Last »

Advertisement




Recent Posts

Gerbert Corpuz vs. Daisilyn Sto. Tomas, G.R No. 186571, August 11, 2010

Republic of the Philippines v. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005.

Imelda M. Pilapil v. Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989

Categories

  • Administrative Law
  • Civil Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Commercial Law
  • Conflicts of Law
  • Constitutional law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Credit Transactions
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Election Law
  • Entertainment
  • Evidence
  • Evidence
  • Food
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual Property
  • Korean Drama
  • Labor Law
  • Law School Notes
  • Life
  • Local Government Code
  • Movie
  • Notes
  • Obligation and Contracts
  • Persons and Family Relations
  • Political Law
  • Property
  • Public International Law
  • Public Officers Law
  • Remedial Law
  • Software Engineering
  • Succession
  • Taxation Law
  • Tech Guide
  • Tips
  • Travels
  • Uncategorized

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Popular Posts

Gerbert Corpuz vs. Daisilyn Sto. Tomas, G.R No. 186571, August 11, 2010

M Boutique by The Manila Hotel at 50% off

M Boutique by The Manila Hotel at 50% off

December 26, 2018
NAIA Terminal 3 Alternate Parking

NAIA Terminal 3 Alternate Parking

December 27, 2018
Checking Your GrabTaxi Total Expense

Checking Your GrabTaxi Total Expense

Instagram Feed

algef.almocera

#neyomanila2023 #neyoconcertinmanila #neyoconcert #neyomanila2023 #neyoconcertinmanila #neyoconcert #araneta #aranetacenter
#bataan #ranchobernardo #bataan #ranchobernardo
Said goodbye to my workplace for the past few days Said goodbye to my workplace for the past few days. 

#bataan #philippines  #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar
#kalesa #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #bataan #philip #kalesa #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #bataan #philippines
Celebrating our wedding anniversary. A week long o Celebrating our wedding anniversary. A week long one. :p

#lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #philippines #bataan
#dinnerdate #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #dinnerdate #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar
#4thweddinganniversary #4thweddinganniversary
Instagram post 17937746630516137 Instagram post 17937746630516137
My date for a lifetime. My date for a lifetime.
#talesofillumina #talesofilluminaph #talesofillumina #talesofilluminaph
Load More... Follow on Instagram

Tags

Agency article 36 Article 153 of the Family Code Bill of Rights Case Digest Civil Code civil law Civil Procedure commercial law Company Policies Constitutional Law Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees court of appeals Credit Transactions criminal procedure Different Kind Of Obligations ec2 Eminent Domain Employee’s Rights family code family home Insurance Intellectual Property japan labor law Law School marriage National Labor Relations Commission negotiable instrument Oblicon Obligation and Contracts Persons and Family Relations Police power Political Law Ponente programming property Psychological Incapacity Remedial Law security Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers Social justice Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations Taxation Law tokyo

Advertisement




Search

algef.almocera

#neyomanila2023 #neyoconcertinmanila #neyoconcert #neyomanila2023 #neyoconcertinmanila #neyoconcert #araneta #aranetacenter
#bataan #ranchobernardo #bataan #ranchobernardo
Said goodbye to my workplace for the past few days Said goodbye to my workplace for the past few days. 

#bataan #philippines  #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar
#kalesa #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #bataan #philip #kalesa #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #bataan #philippines
Celebrating our wedding anniversary. A week long o Celebrating our wedding anniversary. A week long one. :p

#lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #philippines #bataan
#dinnerdate #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar #dinnerdate #lascasasfilipinasdeacuzar
#4thweddinganniversary #4thweddinganniversary
Instagram post 17937746630516137 Instagram post 17937746630516137
My date for a lifetime. My date for a lifetime.
#talesofillumina #talesofilluminaph #talesofillumina #talesofilluminaph
Load More... Follow on Instagram

Subscribe to our Newsletter

© 2019 copyright BingBing Wanders // All rights reserved