SUI GENERIS (Philippine_Laws)

FREE SCREEN SAVER - AUSTRONAUT

2025-02-28T04:38:00.000-08:00

FREE SCREEN SAVER - SQUID GAMES

2025-02-28T04:33:00.000-08:00

FREE SCREEN SAVER - SPIDERMAN

2025-02-22T05:29:00.000-08:00

Free Screen saver: Spiderman

2025-01-22T04:04:00.000-08:00

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

MALA IN SE VERSUS MALA PROHIBITA

2025-01-21T08:21:00.000-08:00

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Guzman, Bocaling Vs. Bonnevie March 2, 1992

2025-01-21T08:06:00.000-08:00

Facts:

Africa Valdez de Reynoso, the administratrix of a parcel of land leased it to the Bonnevies for P4,000 per month with a stipulation that the Bonnevies will be given first priority to purchase the land should Reynoso decide to sell it. According to Reynoso, she notified the Bonnevies via registered mail on Nov 3, 1976 her intention to sell the property for P600K, giving them 30 days to exercise their right, which she failed to prove. The Bonnevies alleged that they didn’t receive any letter. Reynoso sold the land to Guzman, Bocaling and Co. for P400K. The Bonnevies filed an action for annulment of the sale, and that Reynoso be required to sell the property to them which CFI granted and CA affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not the contract is voidable.

Held:

The CA correctly held that the Contract of Sale was not voidable but Rescissible. Under Art. 1380 to 1381 (3) of the Civil Code, a contract otherwise valid may nonetheless be subsequently rescinded by reason of injury to third persons like creditors. The status of creditors could be validly accorded the Bonnevies for they had substantial interests that were prejudiced by the sale of the subject property to the petitioner without recognizing their right of first priority under the Contract of Lease.

According to Tolentino, rescission is a remedy granted by law to the contracting parties and even to third persons, to secure reparation for damages caused to them by a contract, even if this should be valid, by means of the restoration of things to their condition at the moment prior to the celebration of said contract. It is a relief allowed for the protection of one of the contracting parties and even third persons from all injury and damage the contract may cause, or to protect some incompatible and preferent right created by the contract. Rescission implies a contract which, even if initially valid, produces a lesion or pecuniary damage to someone that justifies its invalidation for reasons of equity.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Free Screen saver: Harry Potter

2025-01-21T04:46:00.001-08:00

Free Screen saver: Harry Potter

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

CASES COVERED BY KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

2025-01-21T04:46:00.000-08:00

UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES (ARTICLE. 154);

ALARMS AND SCANDALS (ARTICLE. 155);

USING FALSE CERTIFICATES (ARTICLE. 175);

USING FICTITIOUS NAMES AND CONCEALING TRUE NAMES (ARTICLE. 178);

ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIAS (ARTICLE. 179);

PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY (ARTICLE. 252);

GIVING ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMMATED SUICIDE (ARTICLE. 253);

RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL IF ONLY PHYSICAL INJURIES ARE INFLICTED OR NO PHYSICAL INJURIES HAVE BEEN INFLICTED (ARTICLE. 260);

LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (ARTICLE. 265);

SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT (ARTICLE. 266);

UNLAWFUL ARREST (ARTICLE. 269);

INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS/HER HOME (ARTICLE. 271);

ABANDONMENT OF A PERSON IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM (ARTICLE. 275);

ABANDONING A MINOR (A CHILD UNDER SEVEN [7] YEARS OLD) (ARTICLE. 276);

ABANDONMENT OF A MINOR BY PERONS ENTRUSTED WITH HIS/HER CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS (ARTICLE. 277);

QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING (WITHOUT THE USE OF VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION). (ARTICLE. 280);

OTHER FORMS OF TRESSPASS (ARTICLE. 281);

LIGHT THREATS (ARTICLE. 283);

OTHER LIGHT THREATS (ART. 285); X GRAVE COERCION (ARTICLE. 286);

LIGHT COERCION (ARTICLE. 287);

OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS (COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS). (ARTICLE. 288);

FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS (ARTICLE. 289);

DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE AND CORRESPONDENCE (ARTICLE. 290);

REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF AUTHORITY (ARTICLE. 291);

THEFT (IF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY STOLEN DOES NOT EXCEED P50.00). (ARTICLE. 309);

QUALIFIED THEFT (IF THE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED P500). (ARTICLE. 310);

OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY (ARTICLE 312);

ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS (ARTICLE. 313);

SWINDLING OR ESTAFA (IF THE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED P200.00) (ARTICLE. 315);

OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING (ARTICLE. 316);

SWINDLING A MINOR (ARTICLE. 317);

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Rule on Advertisements

2025-01-12T16:58:00.000-08:00

General Rule:

No advertisements allowed.

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other self-laudation.

Exceptions or Permissible advertisements:

1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.

2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.

3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.

4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and government buildings.

5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books, journals, and legal magazines.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM (SAMPLE)

2025-01-09T17:29:00.000-08:00

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

C I T Y O F __________________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM

We, _______________________________, Filipino, of legal age, married to ________________________ and resident of _______________________, Philippines and ________________________, Filipino, of legal age, married to _______________________________ and resident of ___________________________, Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby state:

1. That we, together with the others hiers of ________________________, have an adverse claim on Lot No. _____________________, with an area of ___________________________________ (_______________) square meters, more or less, located at Barangay _______________________ and covered by OCT NO. _____________________. The said parcel of land is more particularly described as:

OCT NO. _______________

“A parcel of land (Lot _____________ of the Cadastral Survey of ___________, Cadastral Case No. _________, L.R.C. Cadastral Record No. ____________). With the improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of ______________, Municipality of __________________, Province of _______________________. Bounded on the NE. by the Sapang Tulac and Lot 5111; on the S. by Lot 5112; on the SW. by Lot No. 5109; and on the NW. by Lot No. 5109 and the Sapang tulac. Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan being S. 24 deg. 27’E., 398.94 m. from B.L.L.M No. 15; thence N. 6 deg. 48’E., 59.47 m. to point 2; N. 37 deg. 08’W., 75.82 m. to point 3; N. 7 deg. 12’E., 25.69 m. to point 4; N. 36 deg. 28’E., 57.27 m. to point 5; N. 85 deg. 59’E., 33.53 m. to point 6; S. 59 deg. 03’E., 91.46 m. to point 7; S. 30 deg. 16’E., 82.31 m. to point 8; S. 6 deg. 29’E., 57.71 m. to point 9; N. 85 deg. 36’W., 205.79 m. to the point of beginning; containing an area of ____________________________ (______________) SQAURE METERS, more or less.”

2. That late _____________________ bought the said property from ____________________, the grandson of _____________________ last __________________________ by virtue of the document known as “______________________________” entered as Doc No. _____, Page No. ___, Book ____ and Series of _____________ in the notarial book of Atty. ______________________. A copy is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof;

3. That we inherited the said parcel of land from the late ______________________, married to _________________________, by virtue of the document known as “________________________________” dated ______________________ entered as Doc No. ____, Page No. ____________, Book ___ and Series of ________ in the notarial book of Atty. ________________. A copy is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof;

4. That the original copy of _______________________ is not known to us thus we cannot process the titling of the land that we inherited. However, it has come to my knowledge that certain __________________ (granddaughter of __________________________) is presently claiming to still have an interest over the aforementioned parcel of land.

5. That unless an adverse claim is annotated on the above-mentioned ________________________, we are in danger of being defrauded and deprived of our just and valid right over the above-mentioned parcel of land and, as such, we are executing this Affidavit in support of our request for the annotation of an adverse claim over the parcel of land described herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this ____________________ at Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

_______________________

AFFIANT

_________________

__________________________

AFFIANT

_________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___________________, at Dumaguete City, Philippines, affiant exhibited to me their IDs mentioned above.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;

Book No. _____;

Series of 2024

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA, respondent A.C. 6294, November 17, 2004

2025-01-09T17:28:00.000-08:00

Facts:

Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owner's copy of Original Certificate of Title 4153, under the names of Spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales to be transfered to him and his wife. The next day, they tried to register the title in the complainant's name at the Assessor's Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so because the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Incorporated. On May 27, 1997, respondent Zabala notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land, executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office and in disbarment against the complainant. To clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala was negligent in his conduct as a notary public.

Ruling:

Respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It appears that there was negligence on respondent's part which, in our view, is quite serious, A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative's names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.

As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.

Thus, Respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public, hisNotarial commission be REVOKED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Psychological Incapacity

2025-01-07T16:12:00.000-08:00

Psychological Incapacity

What do you mean by psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage?

In the Supreme Court Decision entitled, "Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Hernandez," G.R. No. 126010, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 76, citing "Santos v. Court of Appeals," psychological incapacity was defined as follows:

"Psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate."

The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.

Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable." Further, the Supreme Court cited "Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals," to wit:

"The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by the experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -- not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under principle of ejusdem generis (citing Salita v. Magtolis, supra) nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists."

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LUCKY ENRIQUEZ G.R. No. 264473 (CASE DIGEST)

2025-01-07T06:35:00.000-08:00

Facts:

According to the prosecution, at 4:30 p.m. of May 3, 2017, the PDEA Regional Director Villanueva, conducted a briefing for the implementation of Search Warrant Nos. 5367 (2017), 5368 (2017), and 5369 (2017), all of which were issued by the executive judge of the RTC of Quezon City. Search Warrant 5368 (2017) was issued against Espando, Freddie, and Enriquez at "Informal Settler's Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City" to search for and seize 1. Undetermined quantity of shabu/dangerous drugs, and 2. Drug paraphernalia.

The team for the implementation of Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017) was composed of 30 PDEA agents, with Agent Sulit, as the team leader. Agent Bannagao was assigned as the arresting officer. Agent Million, as the seizing officer, was charged with searching the house described in the search warrant, which was allegedly a drug den operated by Espando, Freddie, and Enriquez. The PDEA coordinated with the Quezon City Police District and secured the attendance of the required witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165. At 5:30 p.m. that same day, the PDEA team proceeded to the target area, where the confidential informant directed them to the subject house. When they arrived at 6:00 p.m., Agent Sulit entered through the open door of the house. Some of the other PDEA agents followed him inside and went upstairs, while the others remained on the first floor. The PDEA agents looked for Espando and Freddie, but they were nowhere to be found. Enriquez, who was on the first floor, was immediately recognized. Upon seeing the PDEA agents, Enriquez ran to the second floor of the house. However, Agent Bannagao caught him and brought him back downstairs, where he was arrested and handcuffed. Agent Million presented the search warrant to Enriquez, informed him of his constitutional rights, and explained their authority to search his house. The search was witnessed by media representative Mendoza of DZAR Sonshine Radio and Barangay Kagawad Bernal of Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City. Agent Million searched the first floor of the house. He found a blue pouch with the brand "Kipling" at the top drawer of a blue gray plastic cabinet beside an altar. Said pouch contained the following: 26 transparent plastic sachets containing white crystal line substance, one improvised tooter, two pieces of disposable lighters, several strips of aluminum foil, one pair of green scissors, and one empty transparent plastic sachet. Agent Million marked and inventoried the seized items, and prepared the Certificate of Orderly Search.

Issues:

First, whether Search Warrant No. 5368(2017) issued against accused appellant Enriquez was valid;

and Second, whether the PDEA properly executed Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017).

Held:

The Constitution guarantees the fundamental right against unlawful searches and seizures, which is sacrosanct and inviolable. Article III, Section 2 thereof provides: SECTION 2. The right or the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

It is for this reason that Article I II, Section 3 paragraph 2 of the Constitution mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. "In other words, evidence· obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. Among the requirements for a valid search warrant is that it must particularly describe the place to be searched. This requirement "is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion to decide on their own where to search and whom and what to seize." The description in a search warrant complies with the constitutional requirement if it meets the following criteria: A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other.

Clearly, the search warrant's wording fails to meet the particularity requirement as it effectively gave the PDEA agents free reign to search every place within the Informal Settlers' Compound in NIA Road. The procedure is clear: government agents must "announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show to them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by them." If the government agents are refused entry despite their compliance, then they have the right to break open doors or windows.

Further, government agents may execute an unannounced intrusion under limited circumstances. Regarding the conduct of the search, Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides a hierarchy of who are prioritized as witnesses. This witness must either be the lawful occupant of the premises to be searched or any member of their family. It is only in their absence that individuals of sufficient age and discretion residing ·in the same locality may step in as witnesses. Corollarily, a search where the "witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and letter of the law" and renders the search unreasonable. In this case, it is undisputed that the police agents entered accused appellant's house without permission and any announcement of their presence. The lower courts' narration of facts is consistent that upon seeing that the door to accused-appellant's house was open, the PDEA agents immediately rushed inside.

First, the government agents never sought accused-appellant's permission to enter his house giving him no opportunity to refuse. Second, as accused-appellant did not see them before they entered, he was unaware of their authority and identity. Third, there is no showing that the government agents believed there was an imminent peril to life or limb. Finally, the prosecution never claimed that. prior to their entry, the government agents were under the impression that accused-appellant was trying to escape or destroy the evidence to be seized. While accused-appellant ran away when he saw them, this act may be attributed to his shock upon waking that several strangers were suddenly inside is house, and not an indication of guilt. It is clear to this Court that the search conducted on May 3, 2017 was executed in violation of the accused-appellant's constitutional rights and the Rules of Court, rendering it void. Concomitantly, the items seized from the search are inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding and may not be used against accused-appellant to support his conviction in the present case. Therefore, his acquittal is in order.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION- AUDIO CODAL

2025-01-07T06:21:00.000-08:00

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

2024-11-12T08:04:00.000-08:00

R.A. 9287

Title Six, Crimes Against Public Morals

GAMBLING AND LOTTERY

A. Introduction

The law on gambling exemplifies the adage that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Although gambling is under the title Crimes Against Morals, the law on gambling does not take morality into consideration. It does not punish gambling per se because they adversely affect public morals, but that it punishes are gambling games which are not covered by a franchise or permit from the government.

B. The applicable laws are:

(1) Presidential Decree No.1602 : (Simplifying and Providing Stiffer Penalties for Violations of Gambling Laws) and (2). R.A. No. 9287 ( An Act Increasing the Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games, Amending Certain provisions of P.D. 1602 and for Other Purposes).

C. Meaning and coverage of Gambling :

1. Gambling games refer to any game or scheme whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles or vale or representatives of value, are made.

2. It is the fact that bets are made which makes the game a gambling game. The game may be decided purely on chance, purely on skill, or both.

It becomes illegal and therefore prohibited if it is not authorized by a franchise.

3. However parlor games are exempted such as those during wakes , unless it clearly appears that the wake is unnecessarily prolonged as to be a cover excuse to conduct illegal gambling

D. Basis for Liability:

A mere spectator is not liable. An accused must participate in an illegal gambling game in any of the following manner:

1. Participating as a bettor

2. Acting as a personnel or staff: such as being the guard or look-out; usher, cook, washer or entertainer

3. Allowing one’s vehicle, house, building, or land, to be used in the operation of an illegal gambling game

4. Acting as a collector or agent

5. Acting as coordinator, controller or supervisor

6. Acting as a maintainer, manager, operator

7. Acting as a financier or capitalist

8. Acting as a protector coddler

9. Possession of Gambling paraphernalia or materials

10. Failing to abate or to take action or tolerating, by a public official, of a gambling game within his jurisdiction

11. Any parent, Guardian, or persons exercising moral authority or ascendancy over a minor, ward or incapacitated person who induces or causes the latter to participate in an illegal numbers game

E. Penalties:

If the foregoing pertains to any numbers game the penalties are specifically those provided for in R.A. 8287

F. Lottery:

A form of gambling whereby prizes are distributed among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize. It requires (i) a consideration (ii) chance or hazard and (iii) prize. Examples are raffle games.

1. Question:

When are promo sales or advertising schemes considered lottery/gambling? ( This refers to the practice of advertising goods for sale offering the purchasers a chance to win a prize by giving them coupons to be drawn later )

Answer: The scheme is considered a lottery or gambling if : (1) the public pays more than the price of the article because the excess is used to defray or cover the cost of the prize or (2) the article is not saleable without the prize and it becomes saleable only because of the prize.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Sample

2024-11-12T02:18:00.000-08:00

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

City of Manila

Branch 1

AAA,
    Plaintiff,
         CIVIL CASE No. _____
    -versus-      FOR: Unlawful Detainer

BBB,
    Defendant.

x-----------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That the plaintiff, AAA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence and postal address at 123 Benitez Street, Manila;

2. That the defendant, BBB, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence and postal address at 456 Modesto Street, Manila, where they may be served with summons and other court processes;

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a land over which an apartment had been constructed located 654 San Pedro Street, Manila;

4. By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the aforesaid apartment for a consideration of P5,000.00 a month as rental to be paid within the first ten (10) days of each month starting November 3, 2011;

5. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting February 19, 2012 up to the present;

6. On May 3, 2012, the plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the apartment which was received by the defendant as shown in the registry return receipt hereto attached as Annex “A”;

7. Despite said letter of demand which was repeated by oral demands, the defendant failed and still refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to vacated the apartment;

8. By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the unpaid rentals, the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint engaging the services of counsel in the amount of P10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant:

1. To vacate the subject premises;

2. To pay the amount of P5,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable use of the subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;

3. To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

City of Manila, September 24, 2012.

CCCC LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Unit 123, Victoria Tower I

Taft Avenue, Manila

By:

DDDD

Roll of Attorney No. 98765

IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila

PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila ) S.S.

I, AAA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and resident of 123 Benitez Street, Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accord Nance with law do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and have read the allegations contained therein;

3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records;

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;

5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed;

6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 24th of September 2012, in the City of Manila.

AAA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of September, 2012, in the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office on April 8, 2012 at the City of Manila.

ATTY. NO CASE

Notary Public

My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2012

Roll of Attorney No. 11111

IBP No. 11111/2-5-12/Manila

PTR No. 11111/12-22-11/Manila

Doc. No. ________
Page No. _______
Book No. _______
Series of 2012.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

SAMPLE OF A POSITION PAPER FOR THE EMPLOYER IN A LABOR CASE : MONEY CLAIMS

2024-11-08T07:55:00.004-08:00

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION

Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch VII

Dumaguete City

MR. X,

Complainant,

-versus-

AAA SECURITY AGENCY AND/OR MR. Y, OWNER

Respondent.

RAB No. VII-08-0000-24-D

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

POSITION PAPER

(FOR THE RESPONDENT)

Respondent, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits his Position Paper, alleging as follows:

1. That the complainant MR. X is Filipino, of legal age, married/single and a resident of Vallehermosa, Negros Oriental;

2. That the respondent is AAA SECURITY AGENCY, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippines Laws, with principal office at Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines, represented herein by MR. Y, of legal age, Filipino, married to _____, and a resident of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental;

3. That AAA SECURITY AGENCY is corporation engage in providing security services to commercial, institutional and industrial businesses in Negros Oriental. The said business is located at Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines, where it may be served with summons and other processes of the Labor Arbiter;

4. That the complainant is alleging under payment minimum wage, nonpayment of 13^th Month Pay, Holiday Pay, Overtime Pay, Night Shift Differential, and Service Incentive Leave;

5. That the complainant was an employee of AAA Security Agency and detailed as a security guard in the following business establishment:

January to December 2021 – Prawn farm - P293 per day

January to December 2022 – Prawn farm – P293 per day

January to July 2023 – Mercury Drug Store – Bacong - P445 per day

6. That during his employment in the prawn farm, he was provided with board and lodging and only worked eight hours a day and in Mercury Drug Store, he worked from 8am to 12nn and 6pm to 10pm only.

As proof of his salary, the respondent is attaching the following:

a. copy of the calculation of his monthly salary is attached as Annex- A;

b. copy of the calculation of the benefits of the employees of Century Security Agency as Annexes- B and B-1, and

c. copy of the deduction slip as Annex – C;

Under payment minimum wage

7. Wage as the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee (Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code)

With regard to under payment of salary, the respondent is a providing for the board and lodging for the complaint which is a valid deduction for his salary during his stay in the prawn farm from January 2021 to December 2022.

Under Article 113 of the Labor Code, no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except for the following cases:

a. In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;

b. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and

c. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Article 114 of the Labor Code also allows deductions on employee’s wages in case of loss or damages to tools, materials or equipment supplied by the employer to the employee where the employer is engaged in trade, occupation or business where practice of making deductions or requiring deposits is recognized.

Article 259 (e) of Labor Code also allows deductions on employee’s wages with regard to payment of agency fees for non-union members who accept the benefits from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiated by the bargaining union.

Also, under the Rules implementing the Labor Code (IRR of Labor Code), particularly Book 3 on Conditions of Employment, deductions on wages are allowed if employer received a written authorization from the employee for payment to a third (3rd) person. This is valid only when the employer did not receive any pecuniary benefit directly or indirectly from the transaction (Rule VIII, Book 3, Section 10 (b) of IRR).

Deductions on wages based on the value of meals and facilities are also allowed as long as the acceptance of the employee is voluntarily made (Rule VII-A, Book 3, Section 7).

On other law, under Articles 1706 and 1708 of the New Civil Code, withholding of wages because of the employee’s overdue debt to the employer and deductions made pursuant to a court judgment against the worker for payment of debts incurred for food, clothing, shelter and medical attendance are allowable deductions.

Facilities are deductible from wages. Facilities are items of expense necessary for the laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so that by express provision of law they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same. (SLL Cables vs. NLRC, March 2, 2011)

Due to the fact that the employer provided boarding and lodging to the employee during his employment in Prawn Farm, there is a valid deduction.

MONEY CLAIMS

8. In determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought. In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment.

This likewise stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents – which show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer.

13^th month pay:

9. All employers are required to pay their rank and file employees thirteenth-month pay, regardless of the nature of their employment and irrespective of the methods by which their wages are paid, provided they worked for at least one (1) month during a calendar year. The thirteenth-month pay should be given to the employees not later than December 24 of every year.

The thirteenth-month pay shall not be less than one-twelfth (1/12) of the total basic salary earned by an employee in a calendar year.

The "basic salary" of an employee for the purpose of computing the thirteenth-month pay shall include all remunerations or earnings paid by his or her employer for services rendered.

With regard to the issue of 13^th month pay, the respondent was able to provide 13month pay for the year 2023 and 2022, as proven by the computation of benefits. Copy of the computation of benefits which is already attached as Annex – B. But for the year 2021, the corporation undertakes to release his 13^th month pay upon agreement between the parties or based on the decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter.

Holiday pay:

10. It is already included in the salary of the employee.

Holiday pay refers to the payment of the regular daily wage for any unworked regular holiday.

Every employee covered by the Holiday Pay Rule is entitled to the minimum wage rate (daily basic wage and COLA). This means that the employee is entitled to at least 100% of his/her minimum wage even if he/she did not report for work, provided he/she is present or is on leave of absence with pay on the work day immediately preceding the holiday.

The respondent stands that the Holiday pay was already included in the monthly salary of the complainant.

Night Shift Differential:

11. Night Shift Differential (NSD) refers to the additional compensation of ten percent (10%) of an employee’s regular wage for each hour of work performed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

It is not applicable in this case, the employee did not work from 10pm – 6pm since January 2021 to December 2023.

Service Incentive Leave:

12. Every employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of service is entitled to Service Incentive Leave (SIL) of five (5) days with pay.

The service incentive leave may be used for sick and vacation leave purposes. The unused service incentive leave is commutable to its money equivalent at the end of the year. In computing, the basis shall be the salary rate at the date of conversion. It is given every end of the year.

In this case, the complainant was already given the SIL. SIL is designated as Five (5) Incentive pay, which was released last December 13, 2022 and June 13, 2023. This is proven by the computation of benefits which is already attached as Annex – B.

Overtime pay

13. Overtime pay refers to the additional compensation for work performed beyond eight (8) hours a day.

The burden of proving entitlement to overtime work rests on the employee, as this monetary claim is not incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days. (Reggie Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc. and Romulo Par, G.R. No. 224944, May 05, 2021)

In the case of Paul Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (G.R. No. 1623419, July 10, 2007), the Supreme Court held that there are two conditions that need to be satisfied before an employee could be entitled to overtime pay. These are:

a. rendition of overtime work; and

b. submission of sufficient proof that overtime work was actually performed.

Since the complainant was not able to prove that he is entitled to overtime pay, the respondent is not liable.

14. Finally, in order to lessen the Court dockets which are heavily and unjustifiably congested as a result of the indiscriminate filing and to unduly burden the parties with the processes of the case, the respondent is willing to make a counter-offer of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) as a full settlement for the grievance of the complainant.

PRAYER

WHEREOF, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that after due consideration, judgment be issued ordering the dismissal of the case.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Dumaguete City, Philippines, November 8, 2024

ATTY. CCC

Counsel for the Respondent

Roll No. 000

PTR. No. 000-A 02/07/2024

IBP No. 000 - 02/19/2024

MCLE No. VII-XXXX until 4/14/2025

Red Cross Building,

Surban Street, Dumaguete City,

Negros Oriental, Philippines

0917108XXXX1/XXXX@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. XXXXXX

PAO

Guihulngan City

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Sample of Affidavit of Desistance and Compromise Agreement

2024-11-08T07:40:00.003-08:00

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Dumaguete)S.S.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

I, MR .X, of legal age, single, and a resident of Banilad, Bacong, Negros Oriental, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am complainant in CRIM CASE NO. 2024-30220 For: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ART. 249 IN RELATION TO ART. 6 OF THE RPC now pending before the RTC Branch 35 of Dumaguete City against MR. Y a.k.a. “Yoyo” and MR. S a.k.a. “Juvy”;

2. That after thorough deliberation on my part, I have come into a decision to no longer pursue the prosecution of the above–entitled case, I now wish to live a quite private life and continue my education and heretofore execute this affidavit of desistance so that the above-mentioned case may be dismissed;

3. That I execute this affidavit of desistance freely and voluntarily to attest to the truth of the foregoing and so that the above-mentioned case may be dismissed.

4. That I execute this affidavit of desistance freely and voluntarily to attest to the truth of the foregoing and so that above–described case shall be dismissed;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ______________________, 2024 at Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

MR. X
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __________________ 2024 in the City of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

Doc. No.____;

Page No.____;

Book No.____;

Series of 2024.

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Compromise Agreement entered by and between:

MR. X, of legal age, single and a resident of Banilad, Bacong, Negros Oriental, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the FIRST PARTY;

-and-

MR. Y a.k.a. “Yoyo”, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Banilad, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and MR. S a.k.a. “Juvy”, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Banilad, Bacong, Negros Oriental, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the SECOND PARTY;

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the parties had an incident last December 26, 2023 at Banilad, Bacong.

In view of the said incident, the FIRST PARTY filed a CRIM CASE NO. 2024-30220 For: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ART. 249 IN RELATION TO ART. 6 OF THE RPC now pending before the RTC Branch 35 of Dumaguete City.

WHEREAS, after thorough deliberation on the part of the FIRST PARTY, he has come into a decision to no longer pursue the prosecution of the above–entitled case and wish to live a quite private life.

WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle the issues pertaining to said case which includes the monthly allowance;

WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY undertakes to withdraw the said case from the court and therefore will no longer attend the hearing/trial of the case and further the sign the Affidavit of Desistance and SECOND PARTY undertakes to give a sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000) to the FIRST PARTY for his trouble and silence regarding to the above-mentioned case;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and dispositions made in this agreement, the parties hereto have agreed as follows:

1. That upon the execution of this document, the SECOND PARTY give the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000) to the FIRST PARTY.

MR. X

FIRST PARTY

MR. Y

SECOND PARTY

MR. S

SECOND PARTY

Signed in the presence of:

1. ________________________ 2. ______________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF DUMAGUETE )S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ____________________, at Dumaguete City, Philippines, personally appeared the following who have satisfactorily proven their identities through their identification cards:

MR. X __________________

MR. Y __________________

MR. S __________________

to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged that the same are their own free act and voluntary deed.

The foregoing instrument consists of two (2) pages including this page whereon this acknowledgment is written and have been signed by the parties and their witnesses on each and every page thereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place above first written.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;

Book No.______;

Series of 2023.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

A Message from the Office of the 2024 Bar Chairperson.

2024-09-04T14:40:00.001-07:00

“So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable,

and then when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable.”- Christopher Reeve.

GOOD LUCK BAR TAKERS.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

2009 Bar exam Q & A - Remedial Law

2024-08-31T20:03:00.001-07:00

QUESTION:Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact, Marcos, filed with the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for annulment of sale against Henry. Marcos and Henry both reside in Asin Road, Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao City. Henry filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prematurity for failure to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2009 BAR EXAMS)

CONCEPT OF EMINENT DOMAIN

2024-08-29T12:00:00.001-07:00

Eminent domain is the inherent power of a nation or a sovereign state to take, or sanction the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. In other words, eminent domain is a coercive measure on the part of the state whereby private interests are impaired for the general welfare.

While eminent domain is an inherent power, it is not absolute such that it is subject to limitations imposed under the 1987 Constitution. Section 1, Article III provides that "no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law", while Section 9 thereof states that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation". These constitutionally enshrined restrictions ensure that private individuals are not unduly prejudiced by the capricious or oppressive exercise of the State's powers.

In other words, Eminent domain, also known as expropriation, is a power vested in the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. In the Philippines, this is a constitutional principle governed by the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 10752 (The Right-of-Way Act), as well as jurisprudence.

Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Republic Act No. 10752 further elaborates the rules, providing specific requirements that the government must meet to expropriate property.

Thus, in order for the State to exercise its power of eminent domain, the following requirements must be present:

(a) that it is for a public purpose; and

(b) that just compensation is paid to the property owner.

Public use means its usefulness to the public, utility or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit. This will ensure that any appropriation of private property by the state should be for public use. In the historical perspective, public use should be mean of a constant growth and not static. As society advances, individual demands increases and new demand use of the resources be devoted. In determining the genuinely of necessity for the exercise of eminent domain is a judiciable question, and the power exercised by the legislature is essentially a political question.

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the true measure of which is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. Further, it does not only refer to the payment of the correct amount but also to the payment within a reasonable time from its taking because without prompt payment, the compensation cannot be considered just. In other words, just compensation in the context of eminent domain or expropriation proceedings pertains to the timely or prompt payment of an adequate value sufficient to recoup the loss suffered by the property owner.

In the case of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), PETITIONER, VS. JOSE GAMIR-CONSUELO DIAZ HEIRS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 218732, November 12, 2018, it stated:

"Furthermore, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts owing to the constitutional mandate that no private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. As such, legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. As such, they are not binding on courts and are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount of just compensation. Even the enumeration of the standards for the assessment of the value of the land for purposes of expropriation under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974 reflects the non-exclusive, permissive and discretionary character thereof."

Steps in the Expropriation Process

1. Identification of Property. The government identifies the property required for a public purpose.

2. Offer to Buy. An initial offer to buy the property is made to the owner.

3. Payment of Just Compensation. Full payment of the property’s value must be made before the government takes possession.

The affected landowner upon the implementation of the expropriation, will file in court of their claim for just compensation. However, if the filing will be delayed, the legal payment will be applied from the time of taking.

Also, the entry into the property prior to full payment, Section 10 of R.A. 7160 requires a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. As a rule, there is a difference if the expropriation involve infrastructure projects, it’s not only deposit rather than the full payment of the value of property.

Owners only have the right to question the sufficiency of the compensation, the public use of the property, or the government’s compliance with legal procedures through appropriate legal action. They can also negotiate for better terms or take the matter to court for fair judgment. owners cannot Refuse if expropriation for public purpose and just compensation is paid.

In certain circumstances, affected property owners may be entitled to additional benefits such as relocation support or compensation for loss of livelihood.

To question the expropriation:

1. Administrative Remedy: Property owners can first seek an administrative remedy by negotiating with the government entity involved.

2. Judicial Remedy: If an agreement is not reached, government agency concern can seek judicial intervention by filing an expropriation case.

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.

Pond5 Artist Page

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Electronic Filing A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC/A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC. August 20, 2024

2024-08-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC/A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC. August 20, 2024

Re: Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and other Court Submissions being filed before the Lower Courts pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule/Moving Towards Digital Courts: Component One: Transition to Electronic Filing and Service of Pleading, Motions and Other Documents as Well as Digital Services of all Orders in Civil Cases

SCAN, SAVE and SEND within 24 hours after the physical filing of civil pleadings in first and second level courts:

Step 1: SCAN each pleading, with annexes, or convert them to Portable Document Format (PDF).

Step 2: SAVE as separate files following these filename formats:

– [Pleading]-[Docket No.].pdf

– [Annex A]-[Pleading]-[Docket No.].pdf

Step 3: SEND via email:

– Subject: [Docket No.], [Case Title-Pleading Title]

– Body: (a) Primary manner of filing; (b) Filing date; (c) Docket number; (d) Case Title; (e) Filing Party; (f) Contact Numbers; (g) Other e-mail addresses; and (h) Titles of attachments.

– Send to the court’s official email address within 24 hours from the primary filing.

– Cc: all counsel and their law firms.

– Retain copy of transmittal email.

For more information, visit the eFiling microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/electronic-filing/.

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

When does presumption of innocence end?

2024-08-28T22:56:00.000-07:00

When does presumption of innocence end?

Where the conviction by a lower court is still on appeal, it has not yet reached finality and the accused still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. It must be remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating the guilt of the accused does not in itself destroy the constitutional presumption of innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues. Thus in Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held that respondent Sandiganbayan did not act with grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari, when it ruled that despite her conviction, the accused still enjoyed presumption of innocence.

Re: Judge Angeles, A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, January 31, 2008.

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Case Digest of Agacid vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 242133 April 16, 2024.

2024-08-28T09:55:00.000-07:00

Whether or not Republic Act No. 9262 covers lesbian relationships.?

Agacid vs People, GR No. 242133, April 16, 2024

Republic Act No. 9262, Section 3(a) defines violence against women and their children:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act,

(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty."

#law #lawyer #barexamprep #BarExamSuccess #jurisprudence

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM

Rules on small claims.

2024-08-28T09:51:00.000-07:00

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or “The 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases”

Please visit my ACCOUNTS:

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM