JOINT SHIP MANNING GROUP v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, GR No. 247471, 2020-07-07 Facts: R.A. No. 1161, or the Social Security Act of 1954, established the Social Security System (SSS). Its declared policy was to develop a social security service to protect Filipino workers. At that time, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) were not covered by the… Continue reading Joint Ship Manning vs SSS GR No. 247471
U.S. vs Dichao
It has been held that an information which does not allege the date of the commission of the offense or alleges a date which is so indefinite as if no date has been alleged, as to prejudice the defense and deprive the accused of the opportunity to defend himself, does not conform to the subscribed… Continue reading U.S. vs Dichao
Rebuttal Evidence
The State has the right to present rebuttal evidence. (Pana vs Judge Buyser, G.R. No. 130144, G.R. Nos. 130502-03, May 24, 2001). In this case, appellants assail the admission of the testimony of Pomoy, Jr. as rebuttal witness on the ground that the prosecution had already rested its case. The Supreme Court held that this… Continue reading Rebuttal Evidence
Retractions No Favor
Recantations are frowned upon by the courts. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. A retraction does not necessarily… Continue reading Retractions No Favor
Yamada vs Railroad: Supreme Court Decision
G.R. No. 10073, December 24, 1915 BUTARO YAMADA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MANILA RAILROAD CO., DEFENDANT, AND BACHRACH GARAGE TAXICAB CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 10074. KENJIRO KARABAYASHI, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MANILA RAILROAD CO., DEFENDANT, AND BACHRACH GARAGE & TAXICAB CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 10075. TAKUTARU UYEHARA, PLAINTIFF AND… Continue reading Yamada vs Railroad: Supreme Court Decision
Invoke and Interpose Res Judicata
Possible Bar Exam Question: A and B sued X. A judgment was rendered in their favor. It became final and executory. May A interpose/invoke res judicata if there is a suit filed by B against him? Why? Answer to the question: No, because res judicata is applicable only as between those who were adverse parties… Continue reading Invoke and Interpose Res Judicata
Effect If There is Levy Over a Right
What is the effect if there is levy over a right, etc., with respect to third persons? Answer: The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the right, title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the time of the levy, subject to liens or… Continue reading Effect If There is Levy Over a Right
Writ of Execution Requires Defendant to Pay Interest
The writ of execution issued by the court required the defendant to pay interest. The judgment does not provide for interest. Is the writ valid? Why? Answer: No. It is beyond the power of the court to issue a writ of execution for the payment of interest together with the principal obligation when the judgment… Continue reading Writ of Execution Requires Defendant to Pay Interest
When To File Petition for Certiorari?
When may a person file a petition for certiorari? Answer: When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy… Continue reading When To File Petition for Certiorari?
Suit for Ejectment Despite Contract to Sell
A suit for ejectment was filed despite the fact that there was a contract to sell between the parties. The buyer failed to pay as his checks bounced. In fact, one condition in the contract was that the buyer shall not possess the property until full payment but because he issued checks he was allowed… Continue reading Suit for Ejectment Despite Contract to Sell
Action for Unlawful Detainer
An action for unlawful detainer was filed containing allegations that the defendant immediately occupied the property after its sale to her, an action merely tolerated by the owner and that her illegal occupation was by mere tolerance. It was ruled that the ejectment case should have been for forcible entry, an action that has already… Continue reading Action for Unlawful Detainer
Extent of Auditing Authority of COA Over GOCCs
What is the extent of the auditing authority of the COA over government-owned corporations? Answer: The auditing authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) over government-owned corporations extends only to those with original charters. (Section 2 (1), Article IX (D). In the exercise of this power, the Commission on Audit has authority over accountable officers… Continue reading Extent of Auditing Authority of COA Over GOCCs