amicusph

Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024]

In Intia v. Ferrer, the Supreme Court addressed allegations against Judge Ferrer, including misconduct, business involvement, case delays, and courtroom demeanor. The Court dismissed most charges due to insufficient evidence but fined Judge Ferrer ₱35,000 for violating rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private business activities.

Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024] Read More »

National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024]

In National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Food Authority (NFA) is exempt from paying real property taxes. The Court held that, as a government instrumentality, it is immune from the local governments’ power to tax under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. Moreover, its properties are properties of public dominion. Hence, further exempted from real property taxes under Sec. 234(a) of the LGC.

National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024] Read More »

Union Bank v. Santibanez [February 23, 2005]

In Union Bank v. Santibañez, the Supreme Court ruled that creditors must file monetary claims against a deceased person’s estate in probate court, not directly against heirs. This ensures proper estate settlement and debt payment. Additionally, heirs are only liable for debts if they were parties to the original obligation.

Union Bank v. Santibanez [February 23, 2005] Read More »

Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety [November 28, 1956]

In Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety’s obligations are transmissible to heirs upon death. The Court allowed Luzon Surety’s contingent claims against Hemady’s estate, emphasizing that such obligations are not strictly personal and thus pass to successors.

Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety [November 28, 1956] Read More »

Calleja vs. Executive Secretary [December 7, 2021]

In Calleja v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court addressed challenges to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The Court upheld most provisions but struck down the proviso “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm” in Section 4, deeming it unconstitutional for being overbroad and infringing on freedom of expression.

Calleja vs. Executive Secretary [December 7, 2021] Read More »

Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr. [November 23, 2021]

In Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr., the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of requiring psychologists seeking licensure without examination to complete 100 hours of professional education. This requirement ensures practitioners maintain updated knowledge, aligning with the Philippine Psychology Act’s standards for public safety and professional competence.

Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr. [November 23, 2021] Read More »

Scroll to Top