PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs. RUMBAUA

"a writer takes his pen, 

to write the words again, that all in love is fair"

I know.. it's February. I think one of the most beautiful cases decided by the Supreme Court that inevitably touched on love  was the Chua-Clave case.

Not only was the decision penned by one of the greatest ponentes (decision writers) of all time (in the person of Justice Regalado), but also exemplified one of the foremost virtues of love, steadfastness.

The Chua case undeniably displayed a strong character of a woman willing to storm the rudiments of courts in order to regain her dignity.. and to prove once and for all that true love indeed could conquer all. 

In the case at bar.. it's different. Reality takes it's course in the most unimaginable detour and stares you in the face,  where the courts, though reluctant to tread on complex and subjective matters of the heart had no choice but to intervene, yet upon intervention conducted itself civil and carefully tip-toed its way as if it seems it was walking on glass.

But mind you, it was in this particular case where the Supreme Court was caught stating one of the most profoundly realistic 'love quote'  that would stare at you and leave you hanging blanked face that is if you are that naive lacking the experience and knowledge of the sad realities of love.

"Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die. It’s a choice one had to face when love’s not the love he expected"                                     – Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua (GR No. 166738)

An off-guard way of love it self slapping you and waking you up to one of its stark, not so glorious, other side attribute, that love is not merely endless bliss and happiness, neither a dreamy fairy tale story, nor a fragrant bed of roses. It doesn't always stand in fortitude, not always believing a noble victorious outcome as the Chua vs. Clave case, it doesn't always persevere. But it assures you that it is still there, that even the changing of words to one of the most respected legal maxims we legal minds hold dear, may still carry you through. Dura LOVE, sed LOVE... Love may be harsh.. but it is Love.  

The present petition traces its roots to the petitioner Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua's complaint before the QC-RTC asking the court for a Declaration of Nullity of her marriage against the respondent Edward Rumbaua alleging among others that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage.

The court promulgated for her a favorable decision declaring her marriage to the respondent null and void on the ground of her husband's psychological incapacity. However, came this petition. Petitioner in this case challenges the 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed her favorable RTC ruling.

Here's the Facts antecedent to the case.. 

Petitioner related that she and the respondent were childhood neighbors in Nueva Vizcaya. Sometime in 1987, they met again and became sweethearts but the respondent’s family did not approve of their relationship.

After graduation from college in 1991, the respondent promised to marry the petitioner as soon as he finds a job. The job came in 1993, when Philippine Air Lines (PAL) hired the respondent as computer engineer.  However, the respondent proposed to the petitioner that they first have a “secret marriage” in order not to antagonize his parents.  Petitioner agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993.

Here's the thing though.. 

Due to the clandestine nature of a "secret marriage" petitioner and the respondent, however, never lived together. Aside from his fear of his parents disapproval, respondent refused to live with the petitioner for fear that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship. The petitioner stayed with her sister in Fairview, QC while the respondent lived with his parents in Novaliches. In spite of this arrangement the two saw each other every day during the first six months of their marriage, they would have sexual trysts in motels.

Seven months into their marriage, the couple’s daily meetings became occasional visits to the petitioner’s house in Fairview. And later that year, respondent lost his employment with PAL. And the parties respective families discovered their secret marriage. The respondent's mother tried to convince him to live in the states for time being but he refused. To appease his mother he continued living separately from the petitioner.

(unfinished)

LAUREANO INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

"No other love, 
let no other love know the wonder of your spell"

What.. Mistake in the Blow?? haha. Just imagine the Lady of Justice so deeply and madly in-love.. boy.. there'll be a miscarriage of justice that's for sure. I swear.

If ever there's a blog post that testifies that love is not just stupid sweet-nothings and cutie-patootie stuff.. this is it.

Deep love is as strong as death, the holy scriptures it self attests to that. The writer in Song of Solomon (c.8 v.6) wrote "Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame." woah intense.  

I think the preceding passage in my own opinion had been one of the basis for the criminal principle of 'passion and obfuscation' as a mitigating circumstance in American criminal justice system, from which we based our own criminal code of course. Love could be that powerful you know, once it had been differently tapped. The characters of the star-crossed lovers basically plays a big role on its outcome to come up with an impulse so powerful the lovers themselves cannot counter.

That is precisely the reason why the lady of justice is blindfolded. In order for her not to see the man she deeply loves at the brink of being meted his own punishment. Otherwise she will move heaven and earth to tilt the balance and save her one great love.

But of course the magistrates should have known better, they were wrong by merely blindfolding a lady. She knows his voice and so she will play it by the ear.

She maybe raising the balance upright for all to see and readies the sword she clings to strike... but her head tilts as she focuses one ear sharp and penetrating seeking to distinguish that voice of the man she loves. And she heard the voice familiar, the beautiful distinctive sound of her beloved. 

And so she deliberately tilts the balance. But the supreme magistrates have distinguished the difference. And ordered the lady to remove her blindfold and to step down from the podium. 

But then the verdict was announced. "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt!.. Death by hanging!!"

She almost fainted at the clamor of the crowd. With eyes drowned in tears she gazed at her beloved in deepest sorrow. And finally gathering the last vestige of her remaining strength she raised the sword she clung to and with a propulsive force she lunged the pointed sharp weapon into her heart. 

Ouch!.. ouch!.. ouch!... tsk tsk.  See I told you I could be the greatest writer ever. So move over Tolstoy, Hemingway, who else, Sparks?.  I'm the greatest novelist. The greatest lover that ever walked this earth LOL. Aww!!

Let's get to the case.. before the ladies take out their tissues and cry and blow their noses, my goodness.

Ah this is such a.. simple technical case. The technicality of this case amounted to a mere SEC registration issue. And up to now I couldn't find out the logic behind it. Was it a counsel error thing? My goodness, this is simple arithmetic. Not registered with SEC = No juridical personality. And no juridical personality = NO CAPACITY TO SUE. Even a scrappy college student could get that. It's the registration that is vital. And it is SEC that gives you the juridical personality. Geez.. how simple can it get? I better hunt down a case where it says otherwise.

OK Here's the FACTS:

Spouses Reynaldo Laureano and Florence Laureano are majority stockholders of petitioner LAUREANO INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

They entered into a series of loan and credit transactions with PNCB (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK).  And to secure payment of the loans, they executed Deeds of Real Estate Mortgage subject of which are 2 parcels of land   registered in the name of the Laureano spouses.  

Now in view of their failure to pay their indebtedness, PNCB applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgages and so titles thereof were consolidated in PNCB’s name.

Thereafter, their foreclosed properties were set for sale by the bank and private respondent BORMAHECO, INC. have expressed interest and became the successor of the obligations and liabilities of PNCB over subject lots by virtue of a Deed of Sale/Assignment including the 2 parcels of land in question, formerly registered in the name of the Laureano spouses.  

5 days after securing titles over the said properties, BORMAHECO filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of  a WRIT OF POSSESSION of the 2 lots formerly owned by the Laureanos. 

LIDECO CORPORATION (seems to be a name that came out of nowhere, stands as an acronym of the petitioner but here it presents it self not as an acronym but a one word corporation which well who knows I guess for a purpose to someday work as a veil of corporate fiction god knows what) filed a motion to intervene on the grounds of some stipulations in the original credit transaction the petitioner entered into with PNCB. So.. technically if I'm not mistaken that makes LIDECO the 4th party in interest here. 

However, BORMAHECO which is the 3rd party in the case at bar filed a motion to strike out LIDECO’s complaint in intervention and all other pleadings submitted by LIDECO (let's not get into that) on the ground that the latter has NO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY of its own, and therefore, NO CAPACITY TO SUE.  (shocks, just when their all in the thick of the fight, I'm cut short with the real credit issues)

ISSUE:

Of course here's the question. Does LIDECO, having not been duly registered with the SEC, have the capacity to sue? 

RULING:

Court said NO. 

Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action.  

Under the Civil Code, corporation has a legal personality of its own (Article 44), and may sue or be sued in its name, in conformity with the laws and regulations of its organization (Article 46). 

Additionally, Article 36 of the Corporation Code similarly provides:

“Corporate powers and capacity. -- Every corporation incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity:

1.  TO SUE AND BE SUED IN ITS CORPORATE NAME;... " (Nice try but its not "To Love and Be Loved" LOL it's "To Sue and Be Sued".. it's a totally different thing ha ha ha... ow! it's February!.. alright)

As the trial and appellate courts have held, “LIDECO CORPORATION” HAD NO PERSONALITY TO INTERVENE SINCE IT HAD NOT BEEN DULY REGISTERED AS A CORPORATION.  

(That's the thing with court procedures you know, it could be robotic most of the time, they will only eat or gulp whatever is shoved in front of them. Expect it.. it's for your own good, you don't wanna be jumbled up with this and that do you? or see everything jumbled up for that matter, besides, to us legal practitioners (woah) technicalities are good sources of circumvention.. alright pun intended) 

Court says if petitioner legally and truly wanted to intervene, it should have used its corporate name as the law requires and not another name which it had not registered.  

(Having run out of cards on the table to pull, that's my own take on this. Credit issues where all stipulations already says it and not otherwise must have triggered the petitioner to chuck-in another so-called party in interest in order to delay or utmost to derail the transfer of possession. Otherwise it would have filed the complaint in intervention in its own name. You must understand these are corporate entities, they have legal teams at the most or one or two legal counsel to keep as a retainer at the least. Alangan na bang sabihin nilang "Ay sorry po nagkamali kame.." when it's fuckin' simple arithmetic. There must be an underlying reason behind why a sudden suspicious looking company unduly registered stepped up and claimed to be a party in interest)  

Bottomline is.. Court says it is nowhere in the motion for intervention and complaint in intervention does it appear that “Lideco Corporation” stands for Laureano Investment and Development Corporation.   Bormaheco, Inc., thus, was not estopped from questioning the juridical personality of “Lideco Corporation,” even after the trial court had allowed it to intervene in the case.

So Estoppel is not applicable in this case. Then it seems to be a hard fast rule.

SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. vs. GARCIA

[Browsing news in the net]  So why is Ms. Gina Lopez feeling fidgety for closing down 23 mining firms when the main reason why these firms are at the brink of being closed down as she herself have said is mainly because these firms are operating in functional watersheds.

Well it's a little bit irresponsible, that I can assure you. I mean you know, to have come up with such a decision like that. I mean you know, close down 23 firms with just a quick snap of a finger?, I mean was there even a study conducted to base this decision?  Well I guess there is. But.. I mean you know.. DENR closing it outright? Not even one or two or three conditions for compliance before closing them down? Have you seen stock exchange in mining plunging down lately? And have you seen the faces of those Filipino-Chinese owners of these mining firms? They're all at a lost, sheepishly looking at each other, couldn't even brake a glass my goodness hahahaha! Horrible faces.

But I dunno, I think we have more than a hundred active mining companies in the country. Less than half of these operating mining firms are metallic miners who dig not merely for gold or silver or what, (di naman literally mga gold digger tong mga to eh)  most of them search for nickel and chromite, the primary material for making our coins and also alloys like that in the automotive industry and stuff.

And more than half of these 100 mining firms go for non-metallic commodities like limestone and sand and gravel which are basic materials for building and construction. In other words the mining industry is an integral part of economic development and national industry.

There you go..

But come to think of it, if you sum it all up, the 23 mining firms the DENR  is closing down do not even comprise 1/4 of all these firms. 

Just imagine if these watersheds and dividing lines between adjacent river system corrodes through irresponsible mining then you're basically reforming and deforming our natural geographical set up.

E baka di na tayo mag mukang archipelago nyan.. puro tubig na tayo LOL. 

I mean don't they even realize that unlike Illegal Logging these stones cannot be regrown like the trees we cut? 

Well I guess there has to be regulation somewhere.

And of course the President may overturn her decision anytime but.. let's see what happens.

Let's get to the case.

This is a case that is actually attached to another case, the "USIPHIL INC. vs. Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises Inc." case.

Sibagat Timber Corporation petitioner in this case of course is a logging firm. Now whether that company is a corporate fiction displaying a veil that needed to be pierced remains a mystery which we'll find out later.

Just mark the Petitioner in this case (Sibagat) in relation to the Respondent in the other case (Del Rosario).

The respondent herein however is a Court Sheriff entrusted with the implementation of a Writ of Execution to conduct a sale by public auction.  Now what is this guy selling as instructed by the court?  This are machinery and mining equipment which are personal property subject of controversy in the previous case. Because in the case entitled "USIPHIL INC. vs. Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises Inc." these personal properties which was owned by Del Rosario & Sons were levied and so respondent Sheriff Garcia was entrusted its implementation. Pag hindi pa klaro yun.. nako. 

In other words Del Rosario here is the judgment debtor.. ngayon mejo siguro ayaw pakawalan ni Del Rosario yung mga gamit nya e di gumawa sya ng isa pang kumpanya para palabasen na actually hindi ako may-ari nyan eh.. si Sibagat... or maybe he has bought Sibagat to answer a need in the future such as this.

Now here comes Sibagat.. on the day of the scheduled levy, Sibagat Timber, represented by Mariano Rana, filed a 3rd Party complaint stating that it is the lawful owner of the properties levied by virtue of I dunno I think a deed of Sale or something. (kalokohan). So yun nga parang naghahabol pa din si Del Rosario. 

Also a TRO was obtained by Sibagat. (Weh!! as in ha.. desperado) However, the public auction proceeded and USIPHIL INC. acquired the certificate of sale for the properties auctioned. So diretso pa din si Sheriff Garcia. Good job!

And USIPHIL INC. filed a motion to dismiss against Sibagat's application for preliminary injunction and the same was granted. 

The CA likewise dismissed Sibagat's appeal, hence this petition for review. (O malinaw yan ah)

ISSUE:

(Question) Did the CA erred in piercing the veil of corporate fiction and holding that Sibagat is one and the same as the judgment debtor?

RULING:

NO. Because the circumstances in this case prove that Sibagat Timber Corp. is a mere instrumentality, adjunct, or conduit of Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprise.

As a rule, the veil of corporate fiction will be pierced when used as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate issues. There would be basis for piercing when the officers and directors of the two corporations are practically the same and both corporations hold office in the same room.

In this case, the circumstances that: 

1) petitioners (Sibagat Timber) and Del Rosario & Sons Logging hold office in the same building

2) the officers and directors of both corporations are practically the same; and

3) the Del Rosarios assumed management and control of Sibagat and have been acting for and managing its business, bolster the conclusion that petitioner in an alter-ego of the Fel Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprise Inc. 

Word of advice... if you're a dishonest businessman and you're gonna make a dummy company to do the dirty work for you... my goodness wag naman yung halatang-halata... holding office in the same building?.. officers and directors.. the same?  Mali.. LOL

So the veil was pierced. Sibagat therefore of course loses this case.

RAMOSO et al vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(Dashboard Case Digest) I swear I could utter a hundred dashboard confessionals on how fuckin' hard to chew these case digests...

Here's what you should know about piercing the veil. Piercing the Veil is not applicable by just merely theorizing. Piercing the veil of corporate fiction is of course allowed in order to remedy a wrong done, but consequently it cannot be used when there is no wrong committed, as in we're merely asking the court to pierce to justify a theory na "E etong kumpanya na to eh ito din may-ari eh... isa lang yan." You can't just say that.

Of course we all know that the burden of proof is always on the one who is accusing. You have to properly plead your cause in front of the courts. So.. you need proof and you need to go through the process.

So.. I hope I have effectively established that the burden of proving otherwise is on the party seeking to have the court pierce the veil of the corporate entity. Di lang ganun kadali yon..

Alright here's the case:

Avelina Ramoso et al are investors and majority stock holders of franchise branches of Commercial Credit Corporation (CCC), a lending and investment firm. Now CCC contracted with its franchise branches for these branches to assign its receivables to CCC. To those who are not in the know, Receivables are asset designation applicable to all debts, unsettled transactions and other monetary obligations owed to a company by its debtors or customers. It's somewhat a sort of assignment like the Assignment & Novation in Obligations & Contracts. 

Now take note.. this practice was discontinued by CCC due to a Central Bank prohibition called the DOSRI Rule where corporations or banks are prohibited from lending funds to directors, officers, stockholders and persons with related interests (such as the investors herein stated). This regulation and set guidelines are set to make sure that lendings by banks or other financial institutions to its own directors, officers, stockholders or related interests are above board. 

So probably CCC was thinking "How can I circumvent this damn regulation?" This is where CCC incorporated CCC Equity, a wholly owned subsidiary to manage the franchise branches. Then CCC later changed its name to General Credit Corporation (GCC). (so I bet you could smell somethin' fishy here). 

Okay to make it all clear... here's what happened. In view of said hindrance (Central Bank Regulation), what CCC did was it divested itself of its shareholdings in the franchise companies. It incorporated CCC Equity in order to take over the administration of the franchise companies under new management contracts. Thereafter, CCC changed its name to General Credit Corporation (GCC). But in the meantime, CCC continued providing a discounting line for receivables of the franchise companies through CCC Equity. Did it become clear?... or.. muddy clear. Trust me I know the feeling.

Ramoso et al saw this differently. They alleged that they discovered several bad business practices being conducted by GCC, and that such questionable practices actually divested GCC of its assets thereby placing the franchise branches at a disadvantage, that GCC through CCC Equity mismanaged the franchise branches thereby causing imminent losses to the investors. 

Ramoso et al then sued GCC before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC hearing officer ruled in favor of Ramoso et al. thereby piercing the veil of corporate fiction declaring that the franchise branches GCC and CCC Equity are one and the same corporation, and that as such, the franchise branches in whom Ramoso et al invested are not liable to the obligations incurred by GCC. 

The SEC en banc interpreted this differently and reversed the ruling of the hearing officer. Thus Ramoso et al petitioned for appeal before the CA. But the CA however, affirmed the SEC en banc ruling.

ISSUE:

Does this warrant a piercing? Is there a veil of corporate fiction to be pierced in the first place anyway? 

RULING:

NO. Court said Ramoso et al did not properly plead their cause. They merely alleged that CCC Equity is a conduit of GCC. As found by the SEC en banc Ramoso et al were not able to prove that CCC Equity was incorporated in order to perpetrate fraud against them. 

The truth about this is that the petitioners had signed the continuing guaranty of the franchise company's bad debts in their individual acts, and their liabilities arose out of the regular financing venture of the franchise companies, and there was no evidence these bad debts were fraudulently incurred. 

Whether the existence of the corporation should be pierced depends always on Questions of Facts appropriately pleaded. Mere allegation that a corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders is insufficient. The presumption is that the stockholders or officers and the corporation are distinct entities. 

The burden of proving otherwise is on the party seeking to have the court pierce the veil of the corporate entity. It was not shown that the debts incurred by GCC were actually incurred in bad faith. 

The thing was there was a pending case relating to the liability of Ramoso et al as guarantors - I think that will be the proper forum to raise their respective liability as regards said debts. But with regards the piercing of this corporate veil? I doubt. So there's no piercing here.

Ramoso et al lost this case.

PHILROCK vs. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION (CIAC)

"You're a beautiful, a beautiful fucked up man

You're setting up your razor wire shrine"

Here's the fucks.. I mean Facts.

Cid spouses right?.. herein private respondents are engaged in a family business. They purchase ready-mix concrete products from petitioner herein, PhilRock, Inc. Eto yung mga cemento, mga indoor & outdoor tiles, panels & stuff. 

So ang ganda ng usapan. The fuckin' thing was.. the concrete products delivered by the latter turned out to be of fuckin' substandard quality. E di syempre as a result the fuckin' structures built using such fuckin' cement developed fuckin' cracks and honey combs (honey comb anay.. gets?). 

So.. respondents, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner with the QC-RTC, which then issued an order dismissing the case and referring the same to CIAC.

Ang galeng no? The construction industry has its own arbitration commission. Pano kase madalas ang issue jan... 2 parties agree, signed the document.. pag delivery na and inspect mo substandard material pala.  Laging gulangan kasi jan. So good thing there's arbitration.. isipin mo nga naman, simpleng bagay lang ang pinagaawayan padadaanen mo pa ba sa korte yan, they will just clog the court dockets kung magkakasuhan ng magkakasuhan tong mga to. 

So the spouses and petitioner had filed an Agreement to Arbitrate. 

Now take note.. Since no common ground can be reached by the parties, they requested the case be remanded back again to the court, to which it had declared it no longer had jurisdiction over the case and ordered the records of the case to be remanded back again to CIAC. 

Hahaha.,. pasahan ng bola... "ikaw na shmoot!!" "de kaw na!!" LOL. At least walang bakaw.. 

Petitioner contended the supposed jurisdiction of CIAC

E di syempre CIAC rendered a decision in favor of the spouses. LOL  Tinatalo nyo kame ah.. teka

Thus, petitioner PhilRock filed a Petition for Review before the CA, to which the latter dismissed. Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Could CIAC take jurisdiction over the case of respondent spouses and petitioner after it had been dismissed by both the RTC and CIAC?

RULING:

Court said Petition has no merit.

Section 4 of EO 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their disputes to voluntary arbitration. 

Further, petitioner continued participating in the arbitration even after the CIAC order has been issued as evidenced by their concluding and signing of the Terms of Reference. 

Onga naman... if you're questioning something you don't agree with.. why step forward and be part of it?.. Qequestion mo tapos sasali ka tas pagnatalo ka babalik ka sa question mo.. duh

The Court said it will not countenance any effort of any party to subvert or defeat the objective of voluntary arbitration for its own private motives. Petitioner is stopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because the latter rendered an adverse decision.

So.. the spouses won this case.

HEIRS OF NICOLAS vs. METROPOLITAN BANK

"He swept the floor with his jacket and lay down, using the book he had just finished reading as a pillow. 
He told himself that he would have to start reading thicker books: they lasted longer, 
and made more comfortable pillows."  

- The Alchemist

Do you remember this kind of bike? The BMX Schwinn Sting-Ray? I'm sure it's familiar. This was the fastest and sturdiest bike ever created when children began racing their bicycles on dirt tracks in southern California in the mid 70's. Inspired by the Motocross stars of that time it picked up and became a craze in the Philippines in the 80s up to the 90s. It's the closest you can get to a Motocross dirt bike when you were still young and tender and adults don't allow you to ride a real motorcycle but you're dreaming of the action. This bike is unmistakably one of the toughest icons of the 80s.

Speaking of the 80s which is considerably the most wild and unforgettable decade. If there's two words to describe that particular era, it's glory & radicalism. My gad it was a glorious and rebellious era and I'm proud I was at least a part of it. It's an ironic time so-to-speak, the era of innocence yet ironically the toughest times and perhaps was the only decade that is home for the braves, you know what I'm sayin? No gadgets, no i-phones. The gadget we knew was an Atari and a load of mechanical stuff and a little Gameboy here and there. And everything was operated by gut feel. Kids then were toughest as nails. No guts? no glory. Every boy and girl were pushed to their limits and I think that made them sturdy. The good thing is they become tougher to protect and preserve the other side of the irony, innocence, if you know what I mean. Something the millennials nowadays are having a hard time to understand simply because of their gadget focus. LOL.

I remember standing at the defunct Roces Velodrome with two of my good high school pals and we were watching the throng of bikers doing the slaloms on the dirt tracks racing like all hell's loosed with this bike. What's great about it is they've put up boombox speakers on each corners playing rock music and so if you're out there racing, it doubles the adrenaline, you'd feel the testosterone rising within, you can't help thinking you're like some actor dude in the coolest movie scene or somethin'. You feel your heart beating fast like the beat of the drum and the electric guitars screaming in your soul with all those overdrives and distortions sound that makes you think that life is putting you to the test, pushing you to the limits and you don't care, all you think about is survive, that you gotta push yourself to that fuckin' limits in order to prove something, that you can win. It's crazy you feel your life is actually larger than life itself. Tsk.. magnificent.

The good thing then was there were rentals that costs us almost our week's allowance (exag) so.. we looked at each other.. what the hell right? cease the day! might as well go broke for a week yet have the feels. So we each took one to join the pack. They were playing 'follow-the-leader', of course we all knew the mechanics, there's this pack of bikers constantly vying for the No. 1 spot. The rule is simple, what ever the leader does, everyone behind should follow. If he took a skid at the angle track each one should do it too. If he did a bunny hop after the slaloms you must do it too. Until another rider get's the lead and takes over. I tell you it's so pretty to watch all the circuit action from afar. The girls go gaga and that is what we want. It's an open race anyone can enter at any point and it's all on-going for hours and if you think you're tough enough then no one stops you from entering the race. That is if you can take it. And I tell yah it usually gets dirty.

At first the three of us raced with each other at the off-dirt fine track.. until this song from the first Karate Kid Soundtrack played THE BEST and soon enough adrenaline kicked in we went straight into the race shouting and laughing "Larusso!!!" hungry for victory. The thing about this race is if you enter in the middle, riders will try to kick you out and they have the right to do so, but if you enter at the tail and work your way to the front, hostility is minimized. But who would want to start at the tail right? Everyone's staring and working to steal the 1st position anyway. So we entered the middle part and boom we were kicked out of the race. And so we dusted off and had to step back and watch the pack and the whole dirt circuit to see some loop holes. We were like lions looking for the weak link from the pack of prey where we could enter. And we saw one weak spot and soon enough we were all inside trying our best to widen the gaps. I think almost 60 seconds I was able to take the lead, until another one stole it from me. Boy I tell yah it was one hell of a ride, and knowing you were able to hold the reins and become a leader even for just less than 60 seconds? the feels man. The guys try to look at you with that coveted approval, "that cowboy held it for more than 8 seconds". (just made that up :) I asked my pals what's that song they were playing when I took the lead. "Someday love will find you.. by Journey". I bought a cassette tape after that HAHAHAHAHA!!!  Cassette Tape!!! and the song reads "Separate Ways" WTF.

I was trying to restore this bike (inset picture). Yeah trying to do some Rick's Restoration stuff. You know how Rick does it? He strips everything and builds everything from scratch. And this is how I exactly wanted to do it. This is my nephews bike. I took it from their garage a week after his father died. You're right it's a BMX Schwinn Sting-Ray. His dad bought it for him at a tight budget on his birthday when he was about 11 or 12. It was the best gift you can give an 11 year old boy. not to mention that it's not just some bike, it's an original one. I saw it lying there after the wake a little bit rusted, old and wrecked and unusable... so I took it put it at the back of the car and told him I'd fix it, I mean you know, just to alleviate at least a part of his suffering and sorrow for the loss, the least thing that I can do co'z I know it's special to him.

It was a horrible feeling seeing your loved ones like two of my nephs and niece going through the toughest time of their life carrying that ordeal as young as that. I'd consider they have more depths in life experience compared to mine I never knew the feeling of loss of a loved one, which is too ironic, considering I'm old and their young. I kinda question God why they should have to go through it at such a young age. I always thought it was too unfair.

It was so heart wrenching I tell you. These kids grew up with me as their tito who fixed everything for them when they needed help ever since they were toddlers and at that moment I was so dumb founded I couldn't do anything. I remember arriving at the funeral and about to park my car when I saw my neph seated at his car parked there with an open door, his friends were outside waving at me and pointing inside. So I walked over and soon as I got there he quickly slipped a pair of shades. He doesn't want me to see him crying. Were talking about a 17 year old and the youngest child here who naturally is considered to be the most affected by scientific findings in this type of circumstance. I opened the car door sat beside him and slowly inched up his shades. "You're crying" "No tito I'm not". But the eyes were so swollen and red.  You should see his friends, they never left his side. Tough bunch. "It's alright you don't have to hide it from me. It's okay to cry.. it will help you and I will always understand" I told him. "I miss him tito.. (sob)" He didn't bawl. But tears kept flowing from his eyes he wanted to slip back the shades. And then he said something like how he loved that car and how his dad taught him how to drive. My heart was shattering like glass pieces.

You should have seen my eldest neph. Tough as the toughest nail. Of course the family slept in their house during the wake. It was morning when he entered the room. I woke "How are you John? hows it going?" "Everything's good tito!.. don't worry I can handle it." So cool and savvy he just gave that usual smile I love seeing. "Ok hit the sack you need to get some sleep from last night's wake vigil" "Alrightyy!!". The minute he hit the bed he bawled so loud like a little child my tears suddenly gushed out unknowingly I had to call my dad his lolo to comfort him. I know these kids are tough but going through an experience like that, it's more tougher to just cry co'z they usually see their tito always strong enough to withstand adverse conditions and control emotions so they were trying to show me their made of the same stuff. Of course they haven't seen me going  through the same ordeal so I'd think it's unfair for them to even think of comparisons.

Ah you should've seen my niece. 'Gad.. :) my niece was the toughest ever. The only time I saw her cry was when she had thrown to me all her sorrows the first time I got there during the funeral and I gave her a hug and that was it, she was okay during the whole funeral. Here's the thing. It sank into her right after all the people were gone and everything was through and they were all by themselves in the house back to their everyday lives. She must've suddenly felt that big hole of absence of her father. She bawled almost everyday. And I know how deeply she missed him, her profy pic had been always a picture of her and her dad and statuses of how she misses him, it brakes my heart every time I chanced reading it. And it's so good to see hundreds of her acquaintances and close friends bombard her page with comforting comments.  

Right now after about two years I am so proud my sister was able to hold it together. I see three very positive out-looked, happy and productive, and well brought up young human beings every time they come over for a visit or we visit them in their house. Sometimes I look at them and feel glad they were able to survive that life storm and everything were all kept in tact. Thanks for God's everyday comfort and provision and love of course. He never left them. God never left us, the whole family. We can only do so much but I think God saw the suffering and brought comfort and true healing and joy each day.

I told them "You will get over this.. I know how tough you three are... for now it may look impossible, and too painful... I understand, and it's because of the abrupt change you were forced to face and you weren't ready for it... but pain heals.. I guarantee you... it's just a matter of time... you just have to hang in there and comfort each other (and tears flowed).   And whenever you pass that hospital (VRP Medical Center) I know you'd feel a pain in your heart inside when you see it whoever you are with, in a bus, the MRT, the car.. don't disregard it, or be bitter about it... make it a point of reference, a place that is something special, like Calvary.. the cross. Make it your own Calvary. We know there's suffering that happened there.. but there's also Salvation... and always remember this and never forget this... the absence of your dad doesn't make you incomplete compared to your friends. Knowing that you went through something or have something like this to carry in your heart... makes you more special.. very special. And you're dad served Him well, he's in heaven.. and we share the same Salvation... and at least we know that his sufferings from his diabetes complications are all over now, right?"  'God I will never forget that moment.

About 8 months after the burial my neph told me he was driving home along Edsa once and it was bumper-to-bumper traffic so he decided to pull over. Lo and behold he found himself right in front of the VRP Medical Hospital so he decided to try to see if he has fully recovered. He went inside the building, walked into the elevator, stepped out to the floor and went to the room where his dad was confined. He told me he never felt anything. Just recalled the funny and light conversations. And so he felt good. He decided to go down to the ICU and the Emergency Room. When he got there, that was when he suddenly felt such deep agony and pain and he started crying he had to control it co'z there were people and doctors and nurses around. He quickly got out of the building and ran to his car. And there he cried real loud where no one can see him. He was actually there at the deathbed with his brother and mom when they were trying to revive his dad and he was screaming holding his daddy's arm. He was telling me this while we were parked at the mall slipping on and off the same shades smiling and laughing as he switched on to other topics. So I laugh as he crack jokes and take a look at him, way too different from way back then... oh death where is your sting... truly the Lamb has overcome.

Roughly almost two years now. It was only this start of the year that I finished the bike. Just right in time for his Feb 13 birthday. He understands of course I'm in my review now so he told me to take my time. They spent the New Year celebration with us so I asked him "What color do you want?" "Maroon, or red and gold" "Any particular reason for the colors?" "It's the color of Ironman's suit" "Ahhhh okay..." "And the label?" His brother interrupted "Mark 46.. that's the best suit Tony Stark had". Well it really does look good compared to the Mark 7... but I've read  from the threads that Mark 7 was one of the toughest and carries a real good history with it even though it's old. Well.. I guess I was talking to millennials here.

I look at them both as they check out my books in the room and stuff and throw some queries about law as we laugh and say funny stuffs. It was a far cry from way back... and I'm so proud of them. They've grown tougher and yet protected that goodness and innocence inside of them. Like that in the 80's... I guess something the millennials have picked up.

Anyway, let's go digest. This is a.. a succession case.

Domingo and Josefa Nicolas are the registered owner of a conjugal property which are 2 parcels of land located in Q.C. both having TCTs respectively under the QC Registry of Deeds. And on this lots stood their residential house. Any children? yup. The spouses got 2 children who herein actually are the petitioners. 

Here's how the story goes. In 1986 the father died, and 2 years after that, a fire broke out and gutted down the QC Registry of Deeds office and among records destroyed were the original TCT copies of herein stated 2 parcels of land. So what the widow did since she had no choice was to file with the Land Registration Administration (LRA) an application for reconstitution of the 2 land titles of which the LRA approved. 

Now here's the start of the controversy. Since the co-owner of the conjugal property was deceased the LRA signed the approved application in the name of the applicant alone, meaning the widow.

And boom!  Roughly about 7 years upon approval the 2 kids found out their mother mortgaged the lots with Metrobank who is inhere respondents. Well there must be some valid reason for the widow's act, this was a woman who was making both ends meet in the absence of a spouse. And well of course there's now the absence of a co-signee in a conjugal property, so might as well right? Wala kang magagawa kailangang mabuhay eh.  Eto matinde, the mortgage was foreclosed. Of course you know, that's what all banks are waiting for right? That's actually how they always want it done. Then they also found out that the respondent bank had the land titles already consolidated in its name. Of course then they would find out what respondent was trying to do next, finalize everything by taking possession of their land. They were filing a court petition in the QC RTC for issuance of a writ of possession which actually was granted.

So what the children did was file a petition for:

1. Annulment of the following: (1) Reconstituted Titles, (2) Mortgage, (3) Sale at Public Auction
2. File with the corresponding court a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession (which was denied)
3. (Thereupon) They filed with the CA a petition for Certiorari

But the appellate court dismissed the petition, it held that the trial court did not commit Grave Abuse of Discretion amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction in its Writ of Possession issuance since such task of issuance of such writ is purely ministerial.

An MR of course was their next move yet to no avail, hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Heirs of Nicolas contends CA erred in the dismissal of their petition for certiorari. Of course the certiorari dismissal zooms on the previous lower court decision of dismissal on their earlier motion to quash the writ of possession, thereby affirming the lower court ruling.

In assailing the CA decision petitioners invoked the ruling in Rivero de Ortega vs. Natividad contending that:

"Where a party in possession was not a party to the foreclosure, and did not acquire his possession from a person who was bound by the decree, but who is a mere stranger and who entered into possession before the suit was begun, the court has no power to deprive him of possession by enforcing the decree."  Thus, it was held that only parties to the suit, persons who came in under them pendente lite (meaning pending law suit), and trespassers or intruders without title, can be evicted by a writ of possession. 

Now the question is.. are the Heirs of Nicolas' contention tenable?

RULING:

Here the Supreme Court coming to the rescue.. stating that..

Petitioners are the children of owners of above said registered properties and therefore compulsory heirs of the spouses. Hence prior to the foreclosure of mortgage and respondent's filing of a writ of possession the children by operation of law acquired ownership of portions of the lot as their legitime upon their father's death.

Second is, petitioners are strangers or 3rd parties to the writ of possession whose rights cannot be determined since they were not impleaded by the respondent. Verily they should not be deprived of their legitime by the enforcement of the writ. So, crystal clear that writ of possession should not include parts of the 2 lots above mentioned.

Furthermore, records indicate that the estate of Domingo Nicolas has not been judicially or extra-judicially settled. Therefore such writ of possession should only apply as far as their mother Josefa Nicolas' share is concerned as determined in a civil case for the purpose of settling the undivided estate of their father.

The CA's assailed decision was modified in the sense that the writ of possession issued by the RTC applies only to such portions of lots pertaining to the mother Josefa Nicolas.

The heirs of  Nicolas wins their shares.

UY CHICO vs. UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY

I dunno. In some way I kinda miss Atty. Edward Chico's class in Civil Law Review. I love that class. The teacher was such a stand up comedian you are kept smiling and laughing from the moment you enter the room up to your way out. Atty. Chico is such a genius when it comes to punchlines. The guy reminds me of this stand-up comedian turned gov. official.. what's his face?. Arnel Ignacio. They kinda look alike too LOL. Word of advice to students behind me. If you look at the subject list to enroll this year and you see the teacher is that guy, by all means enlist your name in that class. I think the dude is sui generis hahaha. Sya lang talaga yung ganon, mahirap makausap ng matino. But I admire his wisdom sometimes. We have the same viewpoint on life.  And I guarantee you, it'll be an experience you'll never regret. Well the fact that genuinely mabait si sir ok na yon. And di sya  gaanong nangbabagsak. He even helps you to remember and push you to dig into your stock knowledge while reciting. That's a real review class. Walang pressure. 

What's the case today..

UY CHICO vs..“Uyy chikoo!!” I remember back in my freshmen year in my previous law school we sort of make fun of the names on the case titles just so it would stick and we wouldn’t forget.  This kinda remind me of an old favorite Bamboo song “..amoy chiko na ako..”. 

To tell you frankly the fruit doesn’t even taste a bit like wine, its so sweet. I remember being introduced to the fruit by my grandma back when I was a little boy swinging on a vine during summer vacation in the province. My grandpa lived in this big old house that got a stuck river like a lagoon right in front of it where me and my cousins took a dip almost everyday. It got this big chico tree standing overlapped on the waters, thing was, the best ones were all at the top of the water so we tied a rope to swing like monkeys. The best part was landing on water with a chico on your mouth. (grabe.. ngiting kasama ng hangin) Tsk.. I guess the best ones are really the ones that’s hard to get huh? (don't believe that crap). And whenever my grandma slides this big bowl full of ripe chicos on the table in the morning when I woke? That’s what I say “Uyyy chikoo!!” It’s really one of my fave fruits.

You know it's awesome living then. Every part of the day is a best part. Morning we feed the ducks and pigs, and then laugh and go fishing. Afternoon we take a dip at the lagoon and climb trees and eat fruits. Evening comes we smile and play and play some more.  Play in the garden under the light of the sky full of stars or the full moon. And all sudden bushes would shake so we'd all stop and stare and then "Awwooooooo!!" boy split second were all running to the veranda when we hear that and our uncles would pop out of the flower bushes laughing so hard. So we'd get the remaining hard chikos and throw at them. But the part I like the most is the haunting part in the mid evening. Co'z the big house was fuckin' infested with ghosts. So it's so exciting when we're all inside the big mosquito net and we hear footsteps in shackles (this is really true) and we were all shaking Aw! coz the old huge house was once used by the japs durin the war I guess, I dunno, I heard stories from my uncles and aunts, and it's got a long silent romantic history I swear. And  I so love the adventure of ghost hunting. One time I secretly took a ball of thread from my aunt's sewing box, tied my lolo's damn rocking chair and secretly kept pulling hahahahaha!.. everyone was screaming like crazy when they saw it movin right before their very eyes. And then my aunt caught me laughing I was almost kicked out of the mosquito net still laughing ahahahahaha!!!  

Anyway let's get to the case (LOL).

This case is ah.. an insurance case. But we will tackle the evidence aspect of this case zeroing in on the attorney-client privilege.

FACTS:

Plaintiff Uy Chico had his dry goods insured. He availed of the insurance upon stocks of dry goods Union Life Assurance had to offer then. And he signed the insurance policies himself. You must understand these were Chinese businessmen and security in their commerce is utmost to them. And subsequent to signing his insurance contract with Union Life, his goods were gutted down by fire. Perfect timing huh?

It appears that the dad of Uy Chico died in 1897 (Am I correct? 1897? This must have been a very old case) . At which time he was conducting business under his own name Uy Layco. (Uuyyy! Like ko!! ehehehe, that’s what you say when you’re liking what you read on facebook and itching to click the ‘like’ button... nahawa na yata ako kay papa Jack este.. papa Edward Chico).  

The thing was, when the dad died Uy Chico and his brother took over the business and merely continued it under the same name “Uy Layco”. (I can attest that this really is an old case, just take a close look at the Chinese names. None of the Chinese names I know nowadays precedes their first names by their last names, which was very prevalent during the Rizal era, sorry I didn’t check the decision date).   

Ok so what happened was.. during years of conducting business with his brother, which was subsequent to the death of the dad and preceding the incident of fire. The plaintiff Uy Chico bought off his brother’s interest in the business. So probably holding a handsome amount his brother ventured on a different business, of course we all know how these Chinese are. Which is a good and wise practice of course, you don't put your eggs in just one basket, right?  So Uy Chico continued the dry goods business on his own, but the thing was, he was still carrying on the business under his father’s name whom we all know was already deceased.

Now there’s quite a controversy that surfaced on this. You see at the time of the fire, the dad was heavily indebted and Uy Chico inheriting the business became even more indebted even to the creditors of the estate of his dad.

Now here comes the attorney-client privilege issue. During the course of the legal proceedings, Uy Chico’s attorney due to the indebtedness of his client had no choice but to enter a compromise with the insurance company for half the face value of the signed insurance policy. Here's what the counsel did. He took the insurance policy documents, surrendered it to the court assigned administrator of his dad’s estate, who in turn compromised with the insurance company. So money was paid into court and held by the court sheriff.

(I take that ah.. I dunno, I'm trying to rationalize the counsel's behavior. Maybe he's trying to salvaged what's there to save, I dunno, maybe by virtue of a promise to the former's deathbed to guard and help diminish future loss. He must've belonged to the older Uy's retainer. He must be originally a lawyer of his dad to be able to behave like that. You know most of the time as I have observed, those who served the predecessor automatically or even unawarely pay tribute to or consider the former's will).

Uy Chico  now brings this action maintaining that the policies and goods insured belonged to him and not to the estate of his deceased father, and together with it he alleges that he is not bound by the compromise effected by the administrator of his father’s estate (see what I'm talking about? there you go). (I wonder if this was Uy Chico’s ploy not to transfer his dad’s title of ownership under his own name, maybe to evade 3^rd party creditors. Thing was, his dad's lawyers therefore operated on the former premise, if that be the case).

Nevertheless, plaintiff was asked by the court if he had any objection to his attorney’s testifying concerning the surrendering of the policies. Plaintiff replied in the negative. Counsel was then called for that purpose. (Imagine you’re supposed to stand as counsel for a party in court and you end up finding yourself on your way to the witness stand, but hey, as I have said, there must be an underlying reason behind all of these. Subject of course to whether such counsel's move was proper).

ISSUE:

The gist of this case is the Attorney-Client Privilege. Whether or not the attorney-client privilege was violated by the attorney’s act of surrendering the insurance policies to the administrator of the estate to effect a compromise agreement with the insurance company.   

The counsel based his argument of the proposition anchoring on a jurisprudence that a waiver of the client’s privilege may be withdrawn at any time before acted upon. 

Let’s see if it will hold.

RULING:

SC ruled that “A lawyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence and preserve the secrets of his client. He shall not be permitted in any court, without the consent of his client, to testify to any facts imparted to him by his client in professional consultation, or for the purpose of obtaining advice upon legal matters”

So it’s clear. It's a question of Legal Ethics. I will not further expound on this. This is interlocutory in nature. We have not even touched on the real legal issue of this case. So if I may close this case post without further ado. The act amounts to a violation of the Attorney-Client Privilege Rule stated under the Rules of Court. 

Atty. E. Chico.... a este... Uy Chico wins this case.