SOLANO vs. C.A., BIENVENIDO & EMETERIA GARCIA

This is a Succession Case. Let's talk about PRETERITION. This case is interesting. It's a battle between Illegitimate Children.

You know other than Criminal Law.. I think Succession compared to the former runs a wider gamut of human drama. Dito yung may nagpapatayan sa mana, naglalasonan, nagbobolahan, falsification of public and private document nandito na. Lahat na siguro. Murder, estafa, adultery, concubinage, physical injury, parricide, infanticide, lahat ng baho ng isang pamilya dito lumalabas, you see the human nature here always comes into play. All because of a desire and intent to gain.  

But contrary to what I've said in the previous paragraph, it's also in Succession Law where you'll see the beauty of character of a person and human love and provision and dispensation. And it is here where you'll hear stories of people and histories of families where you'll say.. a life diligently and well lived really is far more than a valuable heirloom.

Q: Can a last will and testament of a decedent's whole estate override the compulsory heir rule? Can it be probated? That which testator named as heir notwithstanding that such heir instituted is/are not one of those enumerated by law as compulsory heirs? Can it override the proviso?

Well it seems a dying man may designate anyone as heir as he wishes, we cannot go against that, that's human factor. And he is after all permitted by law to control the disposition of his own estate. Of course provided the requisites of the formalities of the will are all satisfied. In testamentary succession in Art. 779 all you need is the 1. designation of an heir, 2. made in a will, and 3. executed in the form prescribed by law. And so there must be a way to over ride the compulsory heir rule.

A: NO. The law will still come in. The provision in Art. 783 reads "..to control TO A CERTAIN DEGREE the disposition..." The permission given by the state for a dying man to control the disposition of his estate is therefore REGULATED. Well in the first place it was PERMITTED (if you read the opening sentence of that provision) so.. what do you expect?

FQ: And so you further ask.. "Why is that so?"

FA: It's because of what we call LEGITIME.

I'm not disproving that it happens but it seems absurd in Philippine customs to designate one who doesn't belong to the family's succession line so.. let's think of someone more relevantly valid to this argument. Let's say you love your illegitimate son/daughter more than you love your legitimate children. Which of course seldom happens in Philippine drama. It's always the other way around. The legitimate child get's kicked off from the estate. In legal drama however it's different: It's the illegitimate child whose always proving filiation with the deceased estranged parent, or is usually denied paternity. But for the sake of this argument, can a testator dispose the whole portion or let's say a bigger portion of his estate to his beloved illegitimate child and.. in a way of PRETERITION I guess, disregard the legitimate children who are his compulsory heirs?

(Well come to think of it, the illegitimate child as stated in the New Civil Code is now one of those enumerated as compulsory heirs, I think the rate is he get's half of what the legitimate bro gets. Like if the father's estate amounts to what? 50 million? The legit child get's half of it so.. 25M.. and the illegit child get's half rate of the legit child.. so.. he get's.. what 12.5M?.. Anyway)

A: NO.   Why?: Again.. it's because of the LEGITIME.

What then is a Legitime?  Legitime  (I think in Art. 886) is that part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law reserved it for certain type of heirs, and they are what you call compulsory heirs. The issue is, legit kids are what you call primary compulsory heirs, the legit parents are only secondary. The thing is an illegitimate child is a mere concurring compulsory heir. Concurring mean you just agreed. Agreed that you will be given and agreed to what you will receive.

Here's a succession case of PRETERITION.  Preterition is the omission of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. Like let's say if you favor other people other than your compulsory heir in the direct line by disposing your estate in a will and deliberately omitting them in such a way that they receive nothing.. well that's Preterition alright. Question is, is Preterition applicable to Illegitimate children?

Here's the case:

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN FILED FOR FILIATION

Around 1969, Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia (GARCIAS) claiming to be illegitimate children of Dr. Meliton SOLANO, filed an action for recognition against him. Well, in his Answer, SOLANO denied paternity. Then a year after, during the pendency of the case, SOLANO died.

LEGITIMATE CHILD CLAIMING SOLE HEIRSHIP

SONIA Ana Solano (petitioner herein) was ordered substituted for the DECEDENT as the only surviving heir mentioned in his Last Will and Testament probated. So SONIA entered her formal appearance as a "substitute defendant" claiming she was the sole heir of her father, Dr. SOLANO, and asked the court that she be allowed to assume her duties as executrix of the probated Will with the least interference from the GARCIAS who were "mere pretenders to be illegitimate children of SOLANO". (see the human drama I've told you?.. it's unfolding)

ILLEGIT CHILDREN IMPUGNS LEGIT CHILD'S CLAIM

GARCIAS filed their REPLY impugning the recognition of SONIA as an acknowledged natural child with the prayer that she be declared instead, like them, as an adulterous child of the DECEDENT.  (O ha? drama begets drama.. I told yah!)

ISSUES:

1) the question of recognition of the GARCIAS; 2) the correct status of SONIA, and 3) the hereditary share of each of them in view of the probated Will.

RTC DECISION GAVE WEIGHT TO ILLEGIT CHILDREN'S CLAIM

1) Trial Court declared the plaintiffs Bienvenido S. Garcia and Emeteria S. Garcia and the defendant Sonia Ana Tuagnon as the illegitimate children of the late Dr. Meliton Solano under the class of ADULTEROUS CHILDREN, with all the rights granted them by law.

So.. turns out birds of the same feather huh? What happens now to the will being probated? E hindi pala legitimate child yung Sonia eh. If there's no legitimate child, then the institution of Sonia as sole heir becomes null and void.  So what we have here now is TOTAL INTESTACY.  I dunno I think Intestate Proceedings comes in. 

2) True enough RTC declared the institution of Sonia Ana Solano as sole and universal heir of the said deceased in the will null and void and

3) The three (3) children shall share equally the estate or one- third (1/3) each.

SONIA APPEAL TO CA. Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling. SONIA FILED FOR REVIEW FOR CERTIORARI SC

RULING:

(What happened here?)  Eto kwento jan eh..

1ST WIFE

MELITON SOLANO, a resident of Tabaco, Albay, married Pilar Riosa. The latter died.

2ND WIFE

On a world tour he met a French woman, Lilly Gorand, who became his second wife in 1928. The union was short-lived as she left him in 1929.

3RD PARTNER (GARCIAS' MOM)

In the early part of 1930, SOLANO started having amorous relations with Juana Garcia, out of which affair was born Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia. Their birth certificates and baptismal certificates mention only the mother's name without the father's name. The facts establish, however, that SOLANO during his lifetime recognized the GARCIAS as his children by acts of support and provisions for their education.

4TH PARTNER (SONIA's MOM)

In 1935, SOLANO started living with Trinidad Tuagnon. Three children were born out of this relation but only petitioner SONIA Ana Tuagnon, 1941, is living. In her Birth Certificate, her status was listed as "illegitimate".

Babaero pala to si Doc..

DIVORCE FROM THE FRENCH GIRL

During the Japanese occupation, SOLANO obtained a divorce from Lilly Gorand on November 29, 1943 and on December 22, 1943, SOLANO and Trinidad Tuagnon executed an "Escritura de Reconocimiento de Unit Hija Natural"   acknowledging SONIA as a "natural child" and giving her the right to use the name SONIA Ana Solano y Tuagnon. The document was registered with the Local Civil Registrar on the same date.

So indeed, Sonia has a better right..

On January 18, 1969, SOLANO executed his "Ultima Voluntad y Testamento" instituting ZONIA as his universal heir to all his personal and real properties in Camalig, Tabaco and Malinao, all in the province of Albay, except for five parcels of land in Bantayan, Tabaco, Albay, which were given to Trinidad Tuagnon in usufruct. The Will was duly probated on March 10, 1969 in Special Proceedings of the Court of First Instance of Albay.

Yun naman pala eh!

SONIA'S CONTENTIONS

1) The RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring substitute defendant Sonia Ana Solano, now petitioner, an illegitimate child of the late Dr. Meliton Solano.

2) The RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the division of the estate of Dr. Meliton Solano between the petitioner and private respondents, when said estate is under the jurisdiction and control of the probate Court in Special Proceedings No. 842.

3) RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring nun and void the institution of heir in the last will and testament of Dr. Meliton Solano, which was duly probated in special proceedings No. 842 of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and in concluding that total intestacy resulted there from.

The thing was.. ANG PROBLEMA NGA E PRETERITION TO EH..

Court said the Trial Court and the Appelate Court had jurisdiction to conclude that, upon the facts, the GARCIAS and SONIA were in the same category as illegitimate children; that ZONIA's acknowledgment as a "natural child" in a notarial document executed by SOLANO and Trinidad Tuagnon on December 22, 1943 was erroneous because at the time of her birth in 1941, SOLANO was still married to Lilly Gorand, his divorce having been obtained only in 1943, and, therefore, did not have the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of SONIA's conception, that being compulsory heirs, the GARCIAS were, in fact, pretended from SOLANO's Last' Will and Testament; and that as a result of said preterition, the institution of SONIA as sole heir by SOLANO is null and void pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code.

"The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious."

However, contrary to the conclusions of the Courts below, holding that the entire Will is void and intestacy ensues, the pretention of the GARCIAS should annul the institution of SONIA as heir only insofar as the LEGITIME of the omitted heirs is impaired.

So the Will, therefore, is valid subject to that limitation.. well I guess it's really plain that the intention of the testator was to favor SONIA..

Court said under the law, he had a right to dispose of by Will, so that the disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one-half (1/2) portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of. Since the legitime of illegitimate children consists of one half (1/2) of the hereditary estate, the GARCIAS and SONIA each have a right to participation therein in the proportion of one-third (1/3) each. SONIA's hereditary share will, therefore, be 1/2 + (1/3 of 1/2) or 4/6 of the estate, while the GARCIAS will respectively be entitled to 1/3 of 1/2 or 1/6 of the value of the estate.

Eto ang hirap sa Succession eh.. yung computation.. you need to memorize the scales. This computation is incorrect.. well according to my teacher. It should have been 1/3 each. In other words the high court should have affirmed wholly the lower court decision. 

So the lower court judgment was modified in so far as the hereditary share in the estate of the decedent was concerned. The rest of the judgment were affirmed.

Kaya mas malaki pa rin talaga share ni Sonia.. parang sinabe ng korte dito "Oo mga illigitimate kayo pare-pareho.. pero may preference yung testator eh..  ganun talaga eh.. basta lang mawala yung Preterition and may mareceive sila okay na"  Pero pare-pareho silang illegitimate eh? korte na mismo nagsabe.. e di tama pala si ma'am.. 1/3 sila dapat each. Pantay-pantay.

But as had been established "the pretention of the GARCIAS should annul the institution of SONIA as heir only insofar as the LEGITIME of the omitted heirs is impaired."

So maybe the high court has reasons.

MISTRAL'S DAUGHTER

You know this case reminds me of that novel by Judith Krantz.  "Mistral's Daughter"? Let me give you a synopsis:

Julien Mistral was a French painter who fell in-love with  Maggy a red-haired Jewish artist model posing nude for him as a struggling artist. She became an overnight success enraging the reigning artist model queen Kiki by bouncing her off the throne as Montmartre's newest sensation. And this brought Julien's name to the fore. Thing was due to circumstances inevitable they got separated. And another woman came into the picture in Julien's life. The wealthy American heiress Kate Browning who is in love with him and arranged his business. In order to survive Mistral marries Kate.

When World War II sweeps the world, Maggy moves to New York to escape the holocaust and to pursue a modeling career. And eventually marries and puts up her own modelling company and begets Teddy, who followed her mother's footstep in the modelling world.  Kate moves into a house in Connecticut and tries to convince Mistral and Avigdor his Jewish friend and curator to join her, but Mistral does not see any danger  while Avigdor cannot leave his sick mother behind.  Mistral seeks help for his friend  and promises to help Avigdor cross the border, but she is caught by the Nazis before she can. A Nazi officer who sympathizes with Mistral's work  allows him to continue to work – catches portraits from Avigdor in Mistral's residence, and warns him not to help Jews. When all of Avigdor's friends are shot by the Nazis, he tries to seeks refuge with Mistral, but Mistral refuses to help him in fear of being sent to a concentration camp as well.

After the War, Kate moves back to France and gives birth to their daughter, Nadine. Back in America, Teddy  now a young adult, has been kicked off boarding school for accompanying male Harvard students, and expresses her desire of becoming an artist model as well like her mother. She goes to France in order to pose for Mistral. Mistral – who is unsatisfied with his private life: he does not love Kate, perceives his daughter Nadine as a mistake, and flirts with other women in front of Kate becomes infatuated with Teddy and courts her. When Teddy becomes pregnant, Mistral vows to leave Kate, but Kate refuses to grant him the divorce. Their daughter, Fauve, is born as a bastard, and Teddy dies in a boating accident shortly after. Maggy takes Fauve to live with her in America.

Sixteen years later, Fauve is sent to spend the summer with her father in Provence. He tries to help her with her painting skills, but she is more involved with dating Avigdor's son Eric and reading about Jewish history and architecture. Fauve decides to remain in France to spend more time with Eric, much to Maggy's disdain. Julien fears that Fauve will estrange from him and decides to put her in his will (for 1/3rd of his paintings) to keep her close. 

So Nadine was the legitimate child and Fauve was the illegitimate one. But Mistral loves Fauve more than his legitimate daughter. We cannot go against that. That's human factor.

So Kate is infuriated upon finding out and takes her revenge by telling Fauve about Mistral's collaborating actions during the War against the Jews. Knowing she has Jewish linage she immediately leaves her father and returns to America, where she decides to work at her grandmother's company. Kate, who has found out a year previous that she was terminally ill, dies of lung cancer, and Mistral's health deteriorates as well. Nadine, who has felt neglected by him for most of her life, is assigned to take care of him, but she ignores her father's cry for help when he has an attack, causing him to die. Nadine is happy to finally get her hands on his will, and is furious when she finds out that Fauve is entitled to his most important pieces of work. 

It's ironic though, the one unloved has more appreciation for his works. So Mistral left a will which Fauve was not even interested in. His paintings. But due to obligations for her father she once loved Fauve travels to France and is introduced to Mistral's most impressive life work.  

Here's what happened. In a manor house that housed all of Mistral's important works Fauve and Eric stood where the will was being read to her. And she was brought into a hall where numerous large pieces of oil paintings covered with white canvass sheets welcomed her.  And one by one she was uncovering the paintings and while doing it, tears were flowing down her face. It was Mistral's great depiction of the holocaust. She couldn't speak. Eric voiced what she couldn't say "Your father despised the war and the mass slaughter of innocent Jews, contrary to what you believe". The lawyer hands her the copy of her father's will saying "This is worth a fortune considering how the wealthiest would pay for a Mistral. More so, the intricacy of such statement being uttered by your father in these depictions.. the wealth these brings you could pay for a life time". Tears continued to flow down her face and feelings of longing and guilt crept into her thinking if she only tried to find out for her self as she said "I never knew.. I never knew". The story ended with her standing at her father's grave. She rekindles her relationship with Eric and decides to follow her true passion of painting her father taught her.

Well I guess we couldn't really bank on first impressions especially once truth of ones silent life starts speaking. 

LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. RAMOS

Somebody gave me a playboy bunny sticker sa koche.. di ko alam kung ikakabit ko o hinde.. para warning daw,.. ano "playboy on board"?  kabit ko kaya para lalong maines.  

“Bakit ngayon ka lang ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ dumating sa buhay ko.. ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ pilit binubuksan..”  A B C.. okay?  

A. Eto yung kanta pag nasa party ka.. kaen ka ng kaen  tapos.. busog ka  na saka pa lang dumating yung lechon… LOL (ay lechon de leche talaga oh!) “bakit ngayon kung kelan ang aking tiyan.. meron ng laman”.

B. Eto yung kantang walang kamatayan request pag nasa inuman ka.. and lahat kayo kumakanta bigay na bigay.. parang anthem or bayang magiliw.. may imaginary mike pa and naka bromance akbay pa kayo.  LOL

C. Eto yung kantang.. nung dumating ka pagpasok mo biglang nagkatitigan kayo ng magandang chik.. tapos ngumiti yung kalahati ng labi mo and kumindat yung kilay mo.. and huling-huli mo ngumiti sya sweet na sweet so napakagat ka sa labe aw!... and inaproach mo.. woohoo!! eto yung ibig sabihen dumating na talaga yung true love mo.. kase biglang nagbago lahat nung nakita mo sya .. kase yung true love mo talaga.. biglang naging fling (LOL). Sumaryosep oh! kung kelan... wag na nga.

Makapag digest nanga lang ng kaso... FACTS of the case states (sorry ah ganto ka-short.. pang recitation mode to eh)

1. This petition for prohibition and mandamus challenges the constitutionality of :

a. R.A. 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), 

b. its IRR 

c. Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) by the govt.  with Western Mining Corporation (Philippines) . (WMC-Phil)

2. FTAA violated the 1987 Constitution in that it is a service contract and is antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.

ISSUE:

What is the proper interpretation of the phrase “Agreements involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance” contained in paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

RULING:

SC upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its IRR insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreements as well as the subject Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.

Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the contractor, provided that the State retains the power to direct overall strategy; and to set aside, reverse or modify plans and actions of the contractor. 

The idea of FULL CONTROL is similar to that which is exercised by the board of directors of a private corporation, the performance of managerial, operational, financial, marketing and other functions may be delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual entities, BUT THE BOARD RETAINS FULL RESIDUAL CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS.

(Whuteveer... Ang haba talaga nitong kasong to eh.. sorry ah tinamad na ako)

JAWORSKI vs. PAGCOR (2004)

"You didn't have to be so nice.. I would have liked you anyway", say that to a naughty little child and for sure he or she'll act behaved while you're around. That's the best diplomatic reverse psychology you could give a child.

I smiled and tapped the chair beside me "here.. sit.." the kid smiled and sat right beside me "Did your dad fix your bike? (I asked).. what have you been doin' lately?" "We went to this restaurant in.." "In?" "Ta.. tag" "Taguig?" "Yeah" "And what did you order?" "I ate.. fo.. foye gra" "Foie Gras?" "Yup" "Aw! don't eat that" "Why?" "That's (whispering) duck liver" "Ewe!.. but it taste.. delicious" "I know but.. they torture the duck before they get the liver" "What's torture?" "Never mind.. don't think about it.. let's never even go there". "Alright.."  I dunno by the looks on his face it seemed he knew and do not like it. And that's good you know, it's nice to instill in a child's fragile heart not to hurt anyone or anything. But I still think I shudda said about that duck liver thing while the mom or dad's around.. anyway.. let the kid just find out and decide for himself.  LOL.

I dunno back when I was a kid.. I also thought that hotdogs came from dogs. And I stopped eating for a while. You see during my  toddler years one of my favorite food are hotdogs. And I couldn’t even say it. “Ha-og” (Lol) remember when you were a baby? And you talk in mumbled cut syllables and your momma or yaya couldn’t decipher what you’re sayin’? “Ano gusto kainin?” “Ha-og!” “Anu nga, anu nga, anu nga ulet?” “Haaa- Og!” And they think it’s so cute they still repeat the question even if they already knew it just to hear you say it again. “Ha-Og!!  Ha-Og!! Ha-Og!!” (foot stump tantrums) “Ha- OoooOOOOAAAAG!!!” “Aaah HOTDOG!”  (LOL).   Parang.. “Philip!” “Chi-ip” “Phi-?” “Chi-?” “lip” “ip” “Philip” “Chi-ip” (LOL). WTF.

I know kids love hotdogs but don't you know that hotdogs are cancerous? So it's bad to feed your kids too much of it from their growing years. They'll be growing cancer cells with them till they grow up. It's good that I'm not very fond if it anymore but way back when I was a kid? I wait for it at the table and when it's served? I raise my fork in the air and yell somethin' like a battle cry "Haaa oooOOOOOOGG!!!!" (Lol)

Anyway.. FACTS of the Case states that: 

(Ow BTW If you're a Baranggay Ginebra fan, you'll surely like this case. The Big-J won this case)

1.  PAGCOR is a GOCC existing under PD 1869 (legislative frenchise)  issued on 1983 by then Pres. Marcos.

2.  1998, PAGCOR’s  BOD  (Board of Directors) approved and granted authority to  Sports and Games and Entertainment Corporation (SAGE) to operate and maintain Sports Betting station including Internet betting in PAGCOR’s casino locations

3.  SAGE commenced its operations by conducting gambling on the Internet on a trial-run basis, making pre-paid cards and redemption of winnings available at various Bingo Bonanza outlets.

4.  Petitioner Senator Robert Jaworski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Games, Amusement and Sports, filed the petition, praying that the grant of authority by PAGCOR in favor of SAGE be NULLIFIED. 

5.  He said PAGCOR committed GADALEJ  (gadalej - ow sorry thats just my acro -  grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, its just 'ultra vires') when it authorized SAGE to operate gambling on the INTERNET. He contends that PAGCOR is not authorized under its legislative franchise, PD No. 1869, to operate gambling on the internet for  said decree could not have possibly contemplated internet gambling since at the time of its enactment on July 11, 1983 the internet was yet inexistent 

ISSUE:

WON  PAGCOR is allowed to contract any of its franchise to another entity such as SAGE.

RULING:

NO.    A LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE is a special privilege with attached public concern granted by the state to corporations to address public interest.  

The privilege  cannot be exercised at will and pleasure, but reserved for public control and administration, directly by government or public agents, under such CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS as the government may impose on them in the interest of the public. Congress that prescribes the conditions on which the grant of the franchise may be made

While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator’s and/or management contracts, it is not allowed under the same charter to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. PAGCOR cannot delegate its power in view of the legal principle of delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so. 

(In Lim vs. Pacquing, (read the previous post) the Court clarified that “since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate even if it has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.” By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate legislative franchise and not “ride on” PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally operate on-line Internet gambling.)

LIM vs. PACQUING (1995)

There's this old samba piece by Michael Franks. "Abandoned Garden". It's actually a tribute to his mentor and friend, Antônio Carlos Jobim, the legendary Brazilian Samba guitarist and proponent who fearlessly pushed that genre to mainstream jazz. One of my early influences in nylon guitar music study as well.

It's an absolutely beautiful song.. but for me all I can say about it now that I'm hearing it from my soundstream gadget again for the first time is 'Damn! what wonderful memories this song evokes'. I dunno it somehow brings you to the depth of a deep love, now lost but never gone. It's lingering. It's there but you cant do something about it.

The song talks about abandoning a garden not because of ones own caprice but because it's just one of life's undeniable facts.. that one day you will leave everything behind. You will simply cease to exist. The abandonment is involuntary and you just realize you're staring at an unkempt garden because the one who tends it is absent.

I remember my mother's gardens as they turn brown whenever she leaves for a considerable time staying in the other house. Talk about a lady having the most green thumb, mom is it. Geez would you believe that lady? whatever flower she dumps into the ground it grows. And I could even somehow really feel they will all sob and cry & damn go melodramatically miss her right from the moment she leaves. "Oh wag kakalimutan ang halaman ko, diligan nyo". "Yes Ma!". And then her rose garden will start to sing in chorus somethin' like "After you leave I start to cry.. hu hu hu" :)

But what's so beautiful about someone abandoning a garden like that is that.. sunlight still prevails. The rain may still come. Some of the plants and flowers may die as you leave, but it's inevitable.. some of the other plants will still be able to survive.

Wouldn't that be nice if someone asks you "How are you.. and her?" And for you to be able to say.. "I dunno.. somehow our love survives".

Let's get to the case.

Here's the FACTS.. recit style.. bullet form:

1.  (1949) RA 409- CONGRESS ACT – CHARTER of MANILA 

2.  (1951) EO 392 – Transferring Authority  JAIALAI -  LG to GAB   (Local Govt – Games & Amusement Board)

3.   (1971) MBM  C.O. 7065 – Authorizing Mayor to establish & operate JAIALAI in MANILA . (Municipal Board of Manila)

4.  (1975) PD 771 was issued by Marcos. REVOKING All Powers and Authority of LG to Grant Franchise, License or Permit to Regulate  Horse and Dog Races, Jai-Alai or Pelota

5.  (1988) ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ADC) tried to operate a Jai-Alai. Government thru  GAB  intervened and invoked PD 771 

6.  ADC assails the CONSTITUTIONALITY of P.D. No. 771.

ISSUE:

W/N   P.D. No. 771 is violative of the EQUAL PROTECTION and NON-IMPAIRMENT clauses of the Constitution.

RULING:

NO.

P.D. No. 771 is VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL.

RATIO:

Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised legislative powers).

Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC’s franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court’s First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution. 

And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC’s possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)

JGB & ASSOCIATES INC. vs. NLRC

This is such a lovely evening. Just listening to Bossa Nova sittin' on a Lazy Boy drinking cold shaked MP Combat.

And what a wonderful night of class lecture with Judge Villarosa in my Labor Review. The insights were relevant and worth pondering and note-taking, and the humor was fantastic. I think there's nothing more apt or appropriate but to post another labor case that coincides with the Judge's lecture. Good evening guys :)

This is one beautiful case decided by the 5th Division of the NLRC when it reversed the POEA decision on a complaint filed by herein private respondent, an OFW with a 2 year contract to work as a draftsman in Saudi Arabia.

Facts of the case states that private respondent Arturo Arrojado was hired by petitioner JGB and Associates, Inc. for its principal, Tariq Hajj Architects, to work as draftsman in Saudi Arabia.  The contract of employment was for two years with a monthly salary of US$500.00 

TERMINATED

Barely 10 months in the job before the expiration of his contract of employment, Arrejado was given notice by his employer that his employment was terminated for the reason that his performance both in productivity and efficiency was below average.  The termination of his employment took effect on the same day.  

So the guy was immediately scheduled to depart Saudi Arabia three days after his dismissal. Of course unexpectedly the poor guy found himself already back in the Philippines. Like “Damn it what happened?”

POEA COMPLAINT

So barely after 2 weeks of soul searching and introspection (haha I just added that sorry) private respondent filed with the POEA a complaint against JGB and Associates, Inc. and Tariq Hajj Architects alleging illegal dismissal and seeking payment of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, salary differential, refund of S.R. 1,000 which was withheld from him for telephone bills, moral damages and attorney’s fees. (‘attaboy!)

ARROJADO ALLEGED

Private respondent alleged in his complaint that he did his job conscientiously and that HE WAS EVEN ASKED TO MAKE SCALE MODELS, IN ADDITION TO HIS REGULAR DUTIES.  He claimed that he was never reprimanded nor informed of his alleged negligence and incompetence either by his immediate supervisor or by his employer.  He also complained that he was denied due process because his dismissal took effect on the same day he was given notice and claimed that, because he was immediately repatriated, he had no opportunity to challenge his arbitrary dismissal.  

Also private respondent admitted that he signed a waiver of claims but alleged that he did so under compulsion and that, in any event, he was not precluded from questioning the legality of his dismissal and from recovering monetary claims due him.

JGB INC. AVERRED

On the other hand, petitioner averred that private respondent was DISMISSED FOR NEGLECT OF DUTIES AND PERFORMANCE BELOW PAR.  Petitioner also alleged that although no prior notice of dismissal was given to private respondent, he was given in lieu thereof a “notice pay” equivalent to one month salary.  

Petitioner denied liability for salary differential on the ground that the employment contract stipulated that his monthly salary was US$500.00.  Petitioner invoked a quitclaim signed by private respondent as evidence that he had been paid all the monetary claims due him.

POEA DISMISSED ARROJADO COMPLAINT

The POEA dismissed private respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered respondents to pay complainant jointly and severally the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment the amount of SR1,000 representing the refund of the telephone bills deducted from the latter. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

NLRC APPEAL – REVERSED POEA DESCISION

Now here’s where the events turn..

Private respondent ARREJADO appealed to the NLRC, which found private respondent’s dismissal illegal and so the assailed POEA decision was SET-ASIDE hence, ordering respondents JGB INC. Et al. to pay complainant jointly and severally the peso equivalent at the time of payment US$7,875.00 representing the unexpired portion of the contract. US$225.00 representing salary differential for nine (9) months, and S.R. 1,000.00 representing refund for telephone bill.

There you go.. that’s what I’m sayin’.. huh? Ofcourse JGB petitioned the high court for certiorari but let’s see what happened?

JGB PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Hence this petition. Petitioner alleges that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

Did it? Did the 5th Division of the NLRC at that time gravely abused its discretion in reversing the decision of the POEA and ruling that private respondent was illegally dismissed?

RULING:

Here’s the court ruling..

NO. (aw!)

Court finds that JGB failed to prove that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that ARREJADO was illegally dismissed.  

BURDEN OF PROOF

You see the court said..

IN TERMINATION CASES, THE BURDEN OF PROVING JUST CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL IS ON THE EMPLOYER. 

Here’s the deciding factor in the POEA Decision why they came up with such decision, let’s take a look…

In this case, the grounds for the dismissal of ARREJADO were stated in two documents presented by JGB INC. et al. before the POEA: 

(1) the notice of termination given to private respondent and 

(2) the letter of the principal, Tariq Hajj addressed to the agent JGB Inc.

In the termination letter, the foreign employer stated that private respondent’s performance was below average.  The foreign employer stated in another succeeding letter that:

“ever since the early days of Mr. Arrojado with us, we were not fully satisfied with his performance and our expectations from him were much higher than we saw him actually producing. Nevertheless  to be very fare with Mr. Arrojado we gave him a lot of time to develop and to get acquainted with our work, system, environment and standards.  

However and for more than eight (8) months he spent with us, we have not witnessed any development in skills or abilities.  Moreover, we noticed a very evident neglect by Mr. Arrojado of the duties assigned to him. This combined with a very thorough evaluation of his performance which resulted from his continuous and repeated neglect throughout the period he spent with us, our decision was very natural.  We felt that Mr. Arrojado was causing our firm tangible financial lose and considerable technical difficulties due to his incompetent performance.”

Here’s a portion of the stipulated contract between the parties provided in pertinent part:

“D. Termination by Employer.  An Employer may terminate the contract of employment for any of the following causes:

       xxx                                  xxx                                  xxx

(c)     Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties

(d)     Fraud or willful neglect by the employee of his duties”

Court stated..

1. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties. 

2. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.  

3. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter’s business.

Now here’s the court's findings..

None of these causes is stated in the two letters of the employer as reasons for dismissing private respondent.  None of the reasons there stated even approximates any of the causes provided in the contract of employment for the termination of employment by the employer.

Indeed, the grounds given for private respondent’s dismissal are NOTHING BUT GENERAL, VAGUE AND AMORPHOUS ALLEGATIONS.  

As the NLRC noted, the letters do not state PARTICULAR ACTS which show that private respondent was indeed negligent and that his performance was below par.  Nor did petitioner show the tangible financial loss which it claimed it suffered as a result of private respondent’s alleged neglect of duty.

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, HE HAD ALREADY SERVED HIS EMPLOYER FOR NEARLY TEN MONTHS.  The letter of termination, expressed disappointment that despite the length of time he had been with the company he had not shown any “development in skills or abilities.” It may be assumed, however, that before private respondent was employed, he was tested for his skill and his ability.  WHY PETITIONER SUFFERED HIM SO LONG IN ITS EMPLOY IF HE DID NOT COME UP TO ITS EXPECTATIONS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED.  

Onga naman, dapat fina-5 months nya nalang.. parang dito.. 5 months after work you’re drifting.. “eeeeeeeeeekkkkk!!!! broom!! broom!” And then the government announces ‘This administration have provided jobs.. blah! blah!”    

Here’s what irked the court..

On the other hand, what is clear from the record is that PETITIONER MADE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WORK ON SCALE MODELS, in addition to the latter’s regular work.  If private respondent’s performance was below average, it is difficult to understand why he should be given additional task to perform.

I vaguely understand what scale models are.. I should’ve been an architect but that didn’t happen so I really do not know if this requires excellent or above par design skills..but by the manner that the private respondent alleged this in his complaint and by the court’s judgment alone making due notice.. it must have been a task with considerable skills not to mention the amount of added work.. so..

Court said..

Indeed, the burden of proving JUST CAUSE for terminating an employee-employer relationship is on the employer.  THE EMPLOYEE HAS NO DUTY TO PROVE HIS COMPETENCE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS DISMISSAL.  As the NLRC rightly held:

This is beautiful.. here’s that NLRC decision..

“What is worse, a finding was made that complainant has the burden of proving that he was not incompetent or inefficient.  This is a serious error and contrary to the well-settled rule that in termination cases it is the employer who has the burden of proof that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause.  Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is illegal (PolymedicGeneral Hospital v. NLRC, 134 SCRA 420). 

Hence, there is no valid basis for the Administrator to conclude that there was a semblance of truth to the charges of incompetence or unsatisfactory performance when the complainant failed to rebut the same.  Thus, in the absence of any other evidence submitted by respondents to substantiate the general charges hurled against complainant, the documents, which comprise respondent’s evidence in chief, contain empty and self-serving statements insufficient to establish just and valid cause for the dismissal of complainant (Royal Crown International v. NLRC, 178 SCRA 569).  

For to allow an employer to terminate the employment of his worker merely based on pure allegations and generalities will place the latter on a dangerous situation as he will be at the sole mercy of the former and therefore, the right to security of tenure which were bound to protect will be unduly emasculated.”  Tsk tsk tsk… beautiful.. 

REGARDING QUITCLAIMS 

Court said..

Nor is the quitclaim signed by private respondent a bar to the filing of the complaint.  We have already held in a number of cases that a deed of release or quitclaim can not bar an employee from demanding what is legally due him.  

Oh yan ah.. malinaw yan ah.. (quitclaim kayo ng quitclaim.. that’s a court ruling and is now being applied in this case)

The reason for this is that the employee does not really stand on an equal footing with his employer.  In some cases he may be so penurious that he is willing to bargain even rights secured to him by law.  

And the poor guy was in a foreign country with no one to help him so the more the quitclaim ruling should be applied..

Listen to what the court said.. it’s beautiful.. (dang! I always say 'beautiful')

There is good reason for applying this ruling here because private respondent was made to sign the deed of quitclaim in this case on the same day he was dismissed.  He was in a foreign country and he had no one to help him. In three days he was due for repatriation to the Philippines.  He had no means of questioning his employer’s acts.  He had no choice but to accept what was being offered to him.  NECESSITOUS MEN ARE NOT FREE MEN.

Contemplate on the last previous sentence..

DUE PROCESS

Furthermore, as the NLRC noted, the fact that private respondent had to be granted by the POEA salary differential for nine months and ordered reimbursed in the amount of 1,000 Saudi Riyal belies the claim that private respondent had been paid everything legally due to him.

In the case at bar, private respondent was not only dismissed without cause but his dismissal was made without due process.  He was informed of the reason for his dismissal only at the time his employment was terminated.  Giving him “notice pay” equivalent to his one month salary in lieu of the notice in the contract of employment could not take the place of notice before dismissal as required by law.  The notice required is not a mere technicality but a requirement of due process to which every employee is entitled to insure that the employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not exercised in an arbitrary manner. 

As the employment contract in the case at bar is for a definite period, private respondent is entitled to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract.  The NLRC, therefore, correctly awarded private respondent the amount which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract.  The “notice pay” given to private respondent should be deemed as indemnity for his dismissal without due process. 

The OFW Arrojado wins this case.  I think it was Justices Regalado, Romero and Puno who decided on this case. 

As I have said.. it’s a beautiful case where an administrative body in the person of the NLRC of which herein attached to the DOLE, spearheaded a concluding rightful decision concurred by I think a three man division of the Supreme Court.  

JANG LIM Et al. vs. NLRC (1999)

Dropped by at the supermart this afternoon to get my self some things as quick as possible. Pulled a cart and walked along to get a bucket of biscuits, some malt and powdered milk, sandwich spread and a bottle of olive oil. I was checking out this Hershey chocolate powdered can reading the calorie content label slowly walking with the other hand stretching trying to feel where the cart is and put it in there. I turned surprised and quite puzzled why this lady was smiling at me like nearly laughing and this little girl wearing cute pair of glasses hands on waist was staring at me like "Well I'll be damned that's our cart mister" LOL.

Let's tackle another Labor case.

Petitioners are regular workers of private respondent Cotabato Timberland Co. Inc. (CTCI) who were hired to perform milling and pilling works and the production and manufacture of plywood and veneer by private respondent TIMEX SAWMILL, a subsidiary of respondent CTCI .

ABNORMAL DEMAND

CTCI experienced an abnormal rise in demand for its plywood and other lumber products. CTCIs regular workers could not allegedly cope with this demand, and this in turn led to an increased need for additional manpower on the part of CTCI to enable it to meet such demand

HIRING TO MEET DEMAND

The hiring of herein petitioners was facilitated through Teddy Arabi, who was tapped and hired by private respondent CTCI to recruit petitioners under strict instructions. Majority of herein petitioners are neighbors, friends and provincemates of Teddy Arabi. In short, petitioners were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI before the commencement of their respective work. Teddy Arabi never maintained an office in private respondents company since his main task is simply to recruit, under strict instruction, additional workers as the need arises.  

WORKERS EXPLOITED

The complainants worked on shifting schedules, initially, in three (3) shifts 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; then, 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and finally, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

Respondent Teddy Arabi appeared to have been paid by CTCI on the basis of sawmill production and/or number of workers or time used in a certain job or area of operation. The former respondent in turn paid the complainants their wages, at the rate of P35.00 daily starting July 1989 and P50.00 daily, starting April 1990 which they continued to have up to the time this case was filed on 17 October 1994 

It appears that aside from said basic wages, the complainants were not paid anything else. Considering that herein petitioners were exploited and underpaid, Teddy Arabi was also tasked by private respondent CTCI to double as an enforcer to sweet talk, threaten or silence any worker who would inquire or question their unconscionably P50.00 per day wage rate and other unpaid labor standards benefits.

For effectivity and faster communication, private respondent CTCI provided Teddy Arabi and his brother Ronie (also an employee of CTCI) with hand-held radios so that the latter could immediately contact the former whenever some problem arises from among the workers in the work premises. Because of this set-up, complaining workers usually do not anymore pursue their labor claims against CTCI with the Department of Labor and Employment. This has been the modus operandi of private respondent CTCI.

Petitioners continued working as workers/laborers at TIMEX SAWMILL and were working under the full control and supervision of CTCIs personnel. Eventually, the working conditions threat became uncontrollable and Teddy Arabi became helpless in controlling the workers demands. 

LABOR COMPLAINT

A letter-complaint was filed by agroup of disgruntled workers with the DOLE, Region IX Office, Zamboanga City for unpaid Labor Standards benefits due them. Thereafter, their group of complainants were continuously harassed and intimidated by management people and were told that if they will pursue their complaints, their services will be terminated and no benefits whatsoever shall be paid them.

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Fortunately, private respondent CTCI managed to convince Teddy Arabi to intercede in this problem and subsequently, an amicable settlement was effected between CTCI and the complaining workers. CTCI paid a total of P223,531.25 as settlement to the claims of the workers. However, CTCI, with ill-motives, maliciously made it appear in the signed quitclaims of the complaining workers that Teddy Arabi was the workers employer and the one who paid their claims. However, the checks were issued in the name of CTCI.

Thereafter on June 17, 1994, petitioners were warned verbally by Administration Personnel that allegedly top management has been dissatisfied with their work performance and production output results and that very soon their services will be terminated.

WORKERS TERMINATED

Eventually, petitioners were barred from entering the main gate of respondent CTCI on July 31, 1994 by the company security guards when they reported for work. Petitioners were informed by the guards that they were already terminated effective that day and should not anymore report for work.

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL COMPLAINT FILED TO LABOR ARBITER 

Evidently, petitioners termination was without notice and without the observance of due process required under the Labor Code and the Constitution. Thus, petitioners, in search for justice filed their respective complaints with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch 9, Zamboanga City, for the  ILLEGAL DISMISSAL and other monetary claims.

FAVORABLE LABOR ARBITER DECISION

On May 17, 1995, Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of herein petitioners and against private respondent CTCI. 

RESPONDENT APPEAL TO NLRC - REVERSE

Private respondents appealed the above-quoted decision to public respondent NLRC which promulgated its resolution on October 25, 1995 reversing and setting aside Executive Labor Arbiter decision. 

PETITIONERS CONTENTION

Petitioners defended Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that no employer-employee relationship exist between petitioners and private respondent CTCI.

They also added Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that Teddy Arabi is an independent contractor and the employer of herein petitioners.

ISSUE: 

 Whether the NLRC erred in finding that the petitioners herein are not employees of private respondent CTCI but of Teddy Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor.

RULING:

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is principally determined by the following indications: 

(1) selection and engagement of the employee; 

(2) payment of wages; 

(3) power of dismissal; and 

(4) employers power to control the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and    methods by which the work is to be accomplished. 

Private respondent CTCI denies that it is involved in the selection of petitioners. It explained that it had a verbal contract with Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor, for the latter to undertake some of its milling and piling works.

It is true that the records show that it was Arabi who recruited the petitioners to work for the company, the latter being neighbors, friends and provincemates of the former. However, it must be emphasized that Arabi invited or enlisted the petitioners to work for CTCI only because the latter instructed him to do so. Arabis main task is simply to recruit, under strict instructions from CTCI, additional workers as the need arises. In fact, before the petitioners were dispatched to perform their assigned tasks, they were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI. While it may be argued that Arabi played a role in the eventual selection and employment of the petitioners, it is clear that his involvement therein was at best perfunctory and mechanical. This is because the recruitment only starts when, in the discretion of CTCI, additional manpower is needed. Patently, the exercise of the power to select and engage the petitioners rested solely in CTCI.

POWER OF CONTROL

With respect to the POWER OF CONTROL over the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, CTCI alleges that it neither exercised nor exerted any control over petitioners because they never set foot on its premises. It argues that the control test has no application in the instant case because there was no occasion to control the petitioners. 

Court, however, find persuasive support on record showing that CTCI exercised the power of control over the employees. As correctly found by the labor arbiter, the work activities and schedules of petitioners were set by CTCI. Evidence of CTCIs absolute control and supervision over the manner and conduct of work of the petitioners can be established from the following:(1) the manning/shifting schedules of the petitioners were entirely prepared and approved by CTCI; and (2) photocopies of the company identification cards not only bear the name of the issuing company as COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO., INC., but were likewise countersigned by CTCIs Personnel Officer.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

To further buttress its allegation that Arabi is an independent contractor, CTCI presented in evidence its letter dated August 9, 1993, informing Arabi that payment for the contracted services will be on an output/bundled basis, and its letter dated August 2, 1994, notifying Arabi of its decision to increase the workers milling rate. CTCI also alleges that Arabi paid the workers through billings made on CTCI based on work output.

PAYMENT OF WAGES

With respect to the payment of wages, private respondent CTCI alleges that the names of petitioners were not in the payrolls of the company. CTCI asserts that petitioners do not have any evidence to prove that it paid their salaries, directly or indirectly, or that they were issued payslips by the company.

Court said it is not unaware of the practice among employers of not issuing payslips, precisely to evade the liabilities that correspond to employers as mandated under the Labor Code. Under the current practice a third person, usually the purported contractor (service or manpower placement agency), assumes the act of paying the wage.

From the point of view of the contracted-out workers, the payment of wages must observe the conventional procedure. It is with the labor-only contractor whom they signed their contract of employment. Since the two-tier contract formatting is being made to operationalize, it thus becomes irrelevant whether or not their employer is a downright cabo or a labor-only contractor. What is important is that they receive their wages and are able to identify the person paying them. 

It is thus understandable why the petitioners were unable to present any payslip bearing the name of CTCI as employer. For the lowly workers, especially in far-flung areas where the wages are extremely low, it is enough that they actually receive their pay, oblivious of the need for payslips, unaware of its legal implications. In fine, we believe that the payment of petitioners wages was coursed through Arabi, but the funds therefor came from the coffers of CTCI.

  

The scourge of exploitation of labor, as shown by numerous petitions before us, remains pervasive. It is imperative for all government agencies concerned to exert all-out efforts to prevent any further violation or circumvention of the provisions of the Labor Code through deceptive devices and malpractices. UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE BEHIND LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE JUST CLAIMS OF THEIR WORKERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.

The challenged resolutions rendered by the NLRC  was  SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC  was REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.

Jang Lim and all the workers wins this case. 

CASTILLO vs. NLRC

I miss this girl. She served me well. For lack of a scanned actual digested reading, allow me to post a picture here. I took this shot a long time ago "Macon let's try this background, trial shot, be my model... no don't smile"

Speaking of labor, I had a business once. Rented this stall in a regular mall. I won’t say what type of business but it’s definitely not food. I had this secretary whose so young, around 21 or 22 years old. Reason why I took her is she’s so smart (though lacking in schooling), and, though petite she has this gorgeous mullato features, guys would sometimes line up.

One time I came by the store. 'Caught her telling off the security guards “Baket pinapapark nyo sa iba yung parking slot ng boss ko??”  “Eh mam kase po..” Lol.  “Macon inaway mo daw yung mga guards”  “Eh kasi sir eh..” “Alam ko crush ka ng mga yan kahit ano sabihin mo sunod mga yan.. pero easy lang, nakapark naman ako eh” “Eh kasi naman sir eh..” 

You know there are 4 types of young women in this country, have I told you that?  1. The young and smart and beautiful.  2. The young and smart and ah.. young  3. The young and beautiful.. and ehem.. young.  And  4. is the young.. and young.. and ahh.. young.  (Lol)

So every time men came to the studio-shop when I’m there they ask me “What can I choose from these variations?” I tell them “Oh everything... but the girl”

Here's the case:

Petitioner Carolina Castillo was an employee of private respondent Philippine Commercial & International Bank (PCIB) Ermita branch since April 1981 as Foreign Remittance Clerk. 

(So by position alone it’s deemed she’s one of the staff) 

January 12, 1988, Faisal Al Shahab, a Jordanian national, went to PCIB Ermita branch to claim a foreign remittance in the amount of US$2,000.00. He paid P450.00 as commission charges as computed by Castillo. Upon re-computation, the correct amount of the charges amounted to onlyP248.75.

January 13, 1988 petitioner Castillo received a Memorandum from the branch manager reassigning her temporarily as Remittance Clerk-Inquiry. 

(So this is a demoted assignment, having a disguise of “temporary". This simply means she’s expected to merely handle inquiries, and hands-off from all the processing papers temporarily, I wonder what the reason is)

So this pissed Castillo knowing she had been in effect dismissed from his current position and demoted to a lower non-staff position. And so this prompted her on January 21, 1988, to file with the NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal asking for her reinstatement as Foreign Remittance Clerk plus moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

Subsequently, petitioner received allegedly under protest, a Memorandum dated January 25, 1988 which accordingly, thereby instructing her further to desist from performing functions of other staff positions particularly those of the Remittance Clerk-POP/Collection Items.

(So there you go, the what should have been temporary now seemed to have been final)

On January 25, 1988, Shahab filed a formal complaint with the branch manager of the respondent bank regarding the over-charging of commission on foreign remittances, specifically mentioning petitioner as the one who attended to his withdrawals.The branch manager decided to pursue further investigation on the matter.

On February 2, 1988, the branch manager issued a Memo to petitioner requiring her to explain within seventy-two (72) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her. Petitioner did not submit a written explanation. 

(Yeah what the heck right? She has a pending case submitted in the office of the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal so fuck it) 

And respondent bank deferred further action on the matter.

And so trial ensued in the case for illegal dismissal and on October 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ruling that petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment when she was transferred to the position of Remittance Clerk-Inquiry from her position of Foreign Remittance Clerk.

The Labor Arbiter opined that while the positions of Foreign Remittance Clerk for Inquiry and Foreign Remittance Clerk for Payment Order Collection are within Level III of the position classification of the private respondent bank, the latter position is vested with more power and responsibilities, thus concluding that petitioner was demoted in her position. 

As regards petitioners reassignment, the Labor Arbiter was of the view that although management has the right to control the nature of hiring, the status of the employee and his work assignment, such right must be anchored on just and valid grounds. 

Pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6715 amending 223 (sic) of the Labor Code, respondent PCIB was ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her position as Foreign Remittance Clerk, Ermita Branch, or reinstate her in the payroll as mandated by the same law.

(Here comes the appeal)

On appeal, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision. It ruled that there was no demotion because the position to which she was being reassigned belongs to the same job level as her former position and both positions have the same rate of compensation. 

Public respondent NLRC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment arguing that it is the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.

 ISSUE:

Was there ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? Or Demotion in Rank?

RULING:

The petition is devoid of merit. 

 NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter.

Court ruled has ruled that petitioner claims that she was constructively dismissed. We agree with the respondent Commissions finding rejecting the same. Well-settled is the rule that it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business. An owner of a business enterprise is given considerable leeway in managing his business. 

Our law recognizes certain rights collectively called MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE as inherent in the management of business enterprises. One of the prerogatives of management is the right to transfer employees in their work station. This Court has consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.  

The Court, as a rule, will not interfere with an employers prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which includes among others, work assignment, working methods, and place and manner of work. The rule is well-settled that labor laws discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of his business. 

Of course, the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SUBTERFUGE BY THE EMPLOYER TO RID HIMSELF OF AN UNDESIRABLE WORKER. 

In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds, and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Where the employer fails to overcome this BURDEN OF PROOF, the employees demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal. 

So Castillo loses this case, her petition was dismissed. And the NLRC Decision reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling was affirmed. 

MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES vs. SSANGYONG CORPORATION

The best romantic stories (wrong, this is not an affair I'm talking about) are the ones that start with no trace of love at all. No 'I love yous', no noisy courtships, no corny heads-up anywhere else.   In fact one of the best circumstances in meeting a woman and establish a connection developing it into a full blown romance is while you're in the course of your everyday job routine as you both practice your profession. It’s quiet, no fanfare, it’s just natural, and you just go with the flow. It’s just like two adult people having a typical conversation where the emotional attachments is accidental and just unnoticeably grows.

Well obviously I think the best place to get a partner is  nowhere else but in the field that you are in. If you belong to the entertainment field, the business, or the arts,  you'd do your self a big favor if you find a partner in life working in the same arena. Because the key to a good relationship is understanding and no one can understand you better but the one who knows the ropes as you do. Lawyers, doctors, of course they can intermarry,  both field have the same discipline.  Although I think the best match is when both of you are the same. Because that amounts to improvement of the occupation, and excellence given out towards that field. And that spells improvement in that field where society benefits in the long run. It's simply just improvement of the gene pool doctrine. A family of lawyers excel.  A family of doctors excel. Same as true with other professions.

Like let’s say in legal practice, having a young smart and gorgeous lady associate assigned with you to work in a case is a very good example to cite here.  “Atty. Clavecilla we are assigning you this case..” “Rape with homicide?  But this is a criminal case...” “And a celebrated case at that… accused comes from a prominent family.. you could be on TV complete with all the media coverage.. you could be famous don’t you want that?” “How old is the victim?” “12 years old”  “I dunno.. these criminal cases are so stressful” “That’s why we have someone to work with you on this” “Who?” “Atty. ______?” All gentlemen stood up. Beautiful lady walks in, all hot and gorgeous tsk. “Ehem” “A sudden smile.. I never thought dispositions could change so quickly within seconds and display otherwise Atty. Clavecilla?” “Hmm shut up” “Atty. Clavecilla? Meet Atty._____.”  (woops I’m imagining things again). 

And so the next day the two of you decides to take a walk in the park to loosen up stress a bit to brake the ice and start up things.. and to discuss the case. You buy her ice cream. Discuss the pleadings.. prosecution evidence.. witnesses... come up with possible scenarios, counter defenses..  you talk.. and talk.. all in the course of the practice of your profession. You were mostly together expected to bring out results. Until one day.. she starts secretly admiring your artistry of presentation.. your voice, your attack.. the elegant man that you are. And you notice the heart and sincerity behind the facade of a woman's mere innate revelry of beauty and brains. But you both brushed it aside to focus on the case where both of you are on the same end goal of bringing justice to the little girl’s memory. 

But you both can’t help it… though you denied looking for each other’s presence.  And in a month or two.. you end up both in bed. Thus, sealing the invisible attachment. You woke up with her by your side one morning, you caressed her long hair, pulled her closer intoxicated by her mouth and subtle words of care, the smell of her elegant perfume. You speak to her “I didn't know you personally approached Jake to assign you on this case" "I had to, I feel sorry for the girl, I felt I had to do something" "You did the right thing" "I'm a bit worried about our witness though" "Don’t worry about it, all they can do is tear down her credibility.. substantial evidence is on our side” “But we need to come up with another witness just in case they half succeed in doing that.. we can't just rely on our direct and redirect examinations, we need corroborative witness” “I've already taken care of that.. I’ll be at the scene of the crime right after the arraignment this noon.. talk to some people.. one of the police had tipped me a good lead yesterday.. I'm very sure another vital witness will surface... believe me, they always do” “Let’s work for a capital punishment” “We are.. and we’ll get there, for the mean time let’s do our best and take every chance we have and give them what we got from beginning to end once that hell started rolling.” She pulls the pillows and sheet to cover her naked body cuddles even closer and kisses you.

Case closed. You both won the case. Now you’re each working on different assignments. You chanced at each other at a coffee shop. And the next scenarios are denials that you both care. But work is hectic and time remains of the essence. So you both tell yourselves.. maybe in another season..and you both try to find all possible reasons not to. But love decides how things must be.. and love is stronger far than you both.  

(Tsk tsk.. lupet ba sa story.. iyak ka na naman Cass ;p )

Let’s get to the case:

     

MCC Industrial Sales is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless steel products. One of its suppliers is the Ssangyong Corporation from Seoul, South Korea having its regional office here in Makati. The two corporations conducted business through phone calls and fax or to be more scientific in term, telecopy transmissions.

Now.. here’s their usual practice in conducting their biz.. Ssangyong Makati would send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to MCC. If the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to Ssangyong, again by fax. 

Ssangyong sent by fax a letter addressed to Gregory Chan, MCC Manager and President of Sanyo Seiki Stainless Steel Corporation, in order to confirm MCC and SANYOSEIKI’s order of 200 metric tons of  hot rolled stainless steel under a preferential rate of $1,860 per MT.

Chan, on behalf of the corporations, assented and affixed his signature on the conforme portion of the letter. Ssangyong forwarded to MCC a pro forma invoice containing the terms and conditions of the transaction. It stated that the payment for the ordered steel products would be made through an irrevocable LETTER OF CREDIT. MCC sent back by fax to Ssangyong the invoice bearing the conformity signature of Chan. 

So.. it’s now a closed deal.. a confirmed transaction..

So Ssangyong now placed the order with its steel manufacturer, Pohang Iron and Steel Corporation, in South Korea and paid the same in full. Ssangyong informed MCC and Sanyo Seiki by way of fax transmittal, that it was ready to ship the stainless steel from Korea to the Philippines. It requested that the opening of the LC (letter of credit)  be facilitated. Chan affixed his signature on the fax transmittal and returned the same by fax to Ssangyong. 

However, both Sanyo Seiki and MCC failed to open the letter of credit. 

Thereafter, Ssanyong filed before the RTC a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against MCC, Sanyo Seiki, and Chan, alleging that the defendants breached their contract when they refused to open the letter of credit. 

Defendants filed a demurrer to evidence alleging that Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the civil action was based. 

The RTC admitted the documentary evidence as electronic evidence and ruled in favor of Ssanyong. Upon appeal to the CA, the latter affirmed the RTC ruling.

Issue: 

Whether or not the printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or electronic document and admissible as such? 

Ruling: 

NO. 

Although the parties did not raise the question whether the original facsimile transmissions are "electronic data messages" or "electronic documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act (the petitioner merely assails as inadmissible evidence the photocopies of the said facsimile transmissions), we deem it appropriate to determine first whether the said fax transmissions are indeed within the coverage of R.A. No. 8792 before ruling on whether the photocopies thereof are covered by the law. 

Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A. No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal. On the other hand, respondent posits that, from a reading of the law and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the original facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules. Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fax transmittals are admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficiently explained the non-production of the original fax transmittals.

The ruling of the Appellate Court is incorrect. R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, CONSIDERS AN ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE OR AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A WRITTEN DOCUMENT FOR EVIDENTIARY PURPOSES. The Rules on Electronic Evidence regards an electronic document as admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws, and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the said Rules. An electronic document is also the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an "electronic data message" or an "electronic document.

We, therefore, conclude that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E" and "F"), which are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence, contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts.