[CASE DIGEST] JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Cebu City, Branch 20, and THE CITY OF CEBU (G.R. No. 126661)

December 3, 1999

 

Ponente: Pardo, J.

FACTS:

·         On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command.

·         In the same month, P/Chief Supt. Jose S. Andaya (Regional Director of the Regional Police Command No. 7) submitted to the mayor of Cebu City a list of five (5) eligibles from among whom the mayor shall choose one to be appointed as the chief of police of Cebu City. 

·         The mayor did not choose anyone from the list of five (5) recommendees because the name of P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento – referred to in the ponentia as the mayor's "protege" – was not included therein.

·         Andaya refused to include Major Sarmiento in the list on the ground that the latter was not qualified for the vacant position. Andaya claimed that Major Sarmiento had not yet attained the rank of Police Superintendent and was yet to complete the Officers Senior Executive Course, both of which are minimum requirements for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands as per NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04.

·         Due to the impasse, the City of Cebu filed before the RTC of Cebu City a complaint for declaratory relief with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order against Andaya and Edgardo L. Inciong (Regional Director of NAPOLCOM). 

·         In their answer, Andaya and Inciong sought for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of legal basis and failure to exhaust administrative rememdies. They countered that the power to designate the chief of police of Cebu City is vested in Andaya as the Regional Director of Regional Police Command No. 7. However, the mayor is authorized to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles submitted by the Regional Director. In case of conflict between the Regional Director and the mayor, the issue shall be elevated to the Regional Director of NAPOLCOM, who shall resolve the issue within five (5) working days from receipt and whose decision on the choice of the chief of police shall be final and executory. 

·         RTC: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Cebu City RTC ruled in favor of the City of Cebu, declaring that P/CInsp. Andres Sarmiento is qualified under RA 6975 to be appointed as Chief Director or Chief of Police of the Cebu City Police Command and whose name must be included in the list of five (5) eligibles recommended as regular replacement to the position of the Chief of Police of said Cebu City Police Command.

·         Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari on pure question of law.

RULING: 

[GUIDE] How to go to Dau Bus Terminal in Mabalacat City, Pampanga

The Dau Bus Terminal in Mabalacat City, Pampanga is a usual stopover for provincial buses coming from Manila en route to Northern Luzon, including the provinces of Tarlac, Pangasinan, and Benguet, and vice versa.

The Dau Bus Terminal is over 70 kilometers away from Quezon City. The usual travel from Mabalacat City to Manila takes more or less an hour via the North Luzon Expressway.

At the Dau Bus Terminal, there are several modes of transportation to key destinations in Luzon. There are UV Express vans going to Zambales (Subic and Olongapo), Bulacan (Bocaue, Plaridel, Baliuag), Bataan, and Nueva Ecija. There are also long airconditioned jeepneys to destinations all over Pampanga, including SM Clark, SM Pampanga, and the Clark International Airport. And of course, there are the usual buses that go to provinces in Northern Luzon. 

Here is how you can reach the Dau Bus Terminal in Mabalacat City, Pampanga from Metro Manila:

[CASE DIGEST] FENEQUITO v. VERGARA, JR. (G.R. No. 172829)

July 18, 2012

Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro H. Rodriguez, petitioner
Bernardo Vergara, Jr., respondent

Ponente: Peralta, J.

TOPIC: Control of Prosecution

FACTS:

On February 11, 2004, an Information for falsification of public documents was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila (representing Bernardo Vergara, Jr.) against Rosa Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro H. Rodriguez. On April 23, 2004, Fenequito, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case Based on Absence of Probable Cause. The MeTC issued an order granting the said motion. Upon appeal by the public prosecutor, however, the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the latter to proceed to trial. Fenequito, et al. filed an appeal before the CA, which subsequently ruled that the RTC's assailed decision was interlocutory in nature and was therefore not appealable. Hence, the instant petition for review.

RULING:

[CASE DIGEST] ABOITIZ EQUITY v. CHIONGBIAN (G.R. No. 197530)

July 9, 2014

Ponente: Leonen, J.

SUMMARY: 

In 1996, Aboitiz Shipping Corporation (ASC), Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. (CAGLI), and William Lines, Inc. (WLI) entered into an agreement (Agreement) whereby ASC and CAGLI would transfer their shipping assets to WLI in exchange for WLI’s shares of stock. WLI, in turn, would run their merged shipping businesses and, henceforth, be known as WG&A, Inc. Attached to the Agreement was Annex SL-V, which confirmed WLI’s commitment to acquire certain inventories of CAGLI in the amount of P400M. Pursuant to said Annex, inventories worth P558M were transferred from CAGLI to WLI. CAGLI was paid P400M plus WG&A shares with a book value of P38.5M.

Since there was still balance, CAGLI sent WG&A (formerly WIL) demand letters in 2001 for the return of or the payment for the excess inventories. Aboitiz Equity Ventures (AEV) alleged that to satisfy CAGLI’s demand, WLI/WG&A returned inventories amounting to P120.04M.

In 2002, the Chiongbian family (of WLI) and the Gothong family (of CAGLI) decided to leave the WG&A enterprise and sell their interest in WG&A to the Aboitiz family. As such, a share purchase agreement (SPA) was entered into by AEV and the respective shareholders groups of the Chiongbians and Gothongs, where AEV agreed to purchase the latter's shares. AEV became a stockholder of WG&A. Subsequently, WG&A was renamed Aboitiz Transport Shipping Corporation (ATSC).

In 2008, CAGLI resumed making demands despite having already received P120.04M worth of excess inventories. These demand letters were addressed to AEV and another company affiliated with the Chiongbian family. CAGLI threatened to pursue arbitration against AEV unless receipts for the purported deliveries were made available.

Its claims left unsatisfied, CAGLI filed two applications for arbitration against AEV before the Cebu City RTC Branches 20 and 10. The first application was dismissed. CAGLI obtained a favorable ruling in the second application.

The SC held that the favorable ruling CAGLI obtained from Cebu City RTC Branch 10 was void on the ground of forum shopping, res judicata, and litis pendentia. 

Similarly, the SC held that AEV cannot be sued against because it was merely a stockholder of ATSC. A corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its individual stockholders. Thus, a stockholder does not automatically assume the liabilities of the corporation of which he is a stockholder.

DOCTRINE:

[REVIEW] 'Rainbow's Sunset' glorifies masochism under the guise of romance

If you are an avid movie lover, you would have noticed that one of the most enduring trite cliches in gay-themed movies, for better or worse, is how the gay protagonist almost always dies.

From local films like Olivia Lamasan’s In My Life and Jun Robles Lana’s Die Beautiful to international releases like Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain and Gus Van Sant’s Milk, gay men dying is a subtle way of cementing the narrative that gay people are doomed to a life of tears, heartaches, and despair, or that their existence is somewhat more dispensable than those with different gender orientation.

Joel Lamangan's entry to the 2018 Metro Manila Film Festival, Rainbow’s Sunset, departs from this gay movie trope by killing off the hustler and not his gay benefactor.

In Rainbow's Sunset, Ramon Estrella (Eddie Garcia) is a renowned political figure who, at the age of 84, leaves his home, wife, and children to be in the company of his dying friend and lover, Alfredo (Tony Mabesa). Ramon’s decision leaves his three adult children, aware of rumors of their father’s sexuality, baffled and concerned that coming out at such an old age would prove to be a PR disaster for their family.

The family matriarch, Sylvia (Gloria Romero), surprisingly takes it all in stride, apparently since she has known all along that the relationship between her husband Ramon and friend Alfredo isn’t just mere platonic.

[CASE DIGEST] ROSARIO COSME DE MENDOZA v. JANUARIO PACHECO and RAYMUNDO CORDERO (G.R. No. 43351)

February 26, 1937

Ponente: Laurel, J.

FACTS:

·         Manuel Soriano was assigned by the CFI of Laguna as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Baldomero Cosme. To assure faithful performance of his duties as an administrator, he filed a bond for P5,000, with Januario Pacheco and Raymundo Cordero as sureties. 

·         Upon approval of Soriano's account, it was revealed that he was indebted to the estate in the sum of P23,603.21. Because of this, he was replaced by Rosario Cosme as the new administratix of the estate. Unable to turn over his debt to the estate upon demand of Cosme,the CFI ordered the execution of his bond after notice was duly served upon the sureties. 

·         Sometime later, the court approved a settlement between Cosme and Soriano, whereby the latter ceded certain real properties to the estate reducing on that account his indebtedness to the estate from P23,603.21 to P5,000. Anent this P5,000 balance, Soriano did not oppose the order of execution of the bond signed by sureties Pacheco and Cordero. 

·         Separate motions to be discharged from the bond were filed by sureties Pacheco and Cordero before the CFI and the SC, all of which were dismissed. 

·         When the case was remanded to the CFI, Pacheco and Cordero filed a motion challenging, for the first time, the jurisdiction of the CFI to issue the order executing the bond. The CFI denied the motion in view of the prior decision of the SC. The case was elevated to the SC for the second time on appeal.

RULING: 

[CASE DIGEST] ACEDERA v. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES (G.R. No. 146073)

January 13, 2013

Jerry E. Acedera, Antonio Parilla, petitioners
International Container Terminal Services, Inv., NLRC, and CA, respondents
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. 

Topic: Rights of a Legitimate Labor Organization 

SUMMARY:

The employees union APCWU filed a complaint against its employer, ICTSI, in relation to a dispute about the divisor to be used in the computation of wages. Fearing that APCWU was not handling the case as diligently as it should on account of the union's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI, some officers and members of the union (Acedera, et al.) filed a motion to intervene. The Court held that there was no need to intervene because Acedera, et al. were already well represented by APCWU. Acedera, et al. also failed to prove fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of APCWU.

DOCTRINE:

A union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. For a member of a union to be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the union must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record; mere assertions do not suffice.

FACTS:

Beginning September 1990, the CBA between International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter (APCWU) contained a provision, which read: "The regular working days in a week shall be five (5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior notice unless any of this day is declared a special holiday."

In accordance with the above-quoted provision of the CBA, the employees' work week was reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued using the pre-CBA 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the employees.

In November 1990, the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB) in NCR decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers and employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower. The then president of APCWU, together with some union members, thus requested the ICTSI's HR Department/Personnel Manager to compute the actual monthly increase in the employees' wages by multiplying the mandated increase by 365 days and dividing the product by 12 months.

Heeding the proposal and following the implementation of the new wage order, ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in determining the daily wage of its employees and other consequential compensation, even if the employees' work week consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA.

In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its on-call employees. This prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike which included as cause of action not only the retrenchment of the employees but also ICTSI's use of 365 days as divisor in the computation of wages. The dispute respecting the retrenchment was resolved by a compromise settlement. However, the dispute respecting the computation of wages was referred to the LA.

On February 26, 1997, APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees similarly situated, filed with the LA a complaint against ICTSI. But the LA dismissed the complaint due to APCWU's failure to file its position paper.

The dismissal of the complaint prompted herein petitioners (Acedera, et al.), all of whom were ICTSI employees and APCWU officers/members, to file a motion to revive the case, which was granted. Subsequently, Acedera, et al. filed a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene before the LA.

LA ruling: (a) Correct divisor should be 250 days; (b) Acedera, et al.'s motion to intervene was denied because herein petitioners were already well represented by APCWU.

NLRC ruling: (a) LA ruling on divisor reversed; correct divisor should still be 365 days; (b) affirmed the denial of Acedera, et al.'s Motion to Intervene.

CA ruling: (a) NLRC ruling on divisor affirmed; (b) Acedera, et al.'s appeal re: Motion to Intervene denied because: (1) Acedera, et al. were already well represented by their employees union, APCWU; (2) only Acedera signed the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; and (3) Acedera, et al. have not presented any meritorious argument that would justify the reversal of the Decision of the NLRC.

Hence, the instant petition. 

RULING:

[CASE DIGEST] BADILLO v. FERRER (G.R. No. L-51369)

July 29, 1987

 

Ponente: Gancayco, J. 

FACTS:

·         Macario Badillo died intestate on February 4, 1966. He was survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children: Alberto, 16, Nenita, 14, Hilly 12, Cristy, 9, and Maria Salome, 5. He left a parcel of registered land of 77 square meters in Lumban, Laguna, with a house erected thereon, valued at P7,500.00. Hence, each of his five minor children had inherited a 1/12 share of the P7,500.00 or P625.00 each.

·         In 1967, Clarita the surviving widow, in her own behalf and as natural guardian of her minor children, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale of the land in Lumban in favor of the spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. A new transfer certificate of title was thereafter issued to Soromero and Rana. 

·         In 1968, Modesta Badillo (Macario's sister and aunt of the five minor children) was able to obtain guardianship over the persons and properties of the 5 minor children, without personal notice to their mother, who was alleged "could not be located inspite of the efforts exerted."

·         In 1970, Modesta caused the 5 minor children to file a complaint in court for the annulment of the sale of the Lumban property to Soromero and Rana. The complaint likewise averred that, even if such sale were valid, the five minor children as co-owners were allowed to exercise the right of legal redemption.

·         RTC: Annulled the sale of the Lumban property to Soromero and Rana. The ruling also allowed the 5 minor children to redeem the property.

·         The instant petition was filed by Soromero and Rana.

RULING: