In Go v. Go and Republic, the Supreme Court upheld the nullification of the marriage of the Spouses Leilani and Hendrick Go under Article 36 of the Family Code. It gave credence to the testimony of both ordinary and expert witnesses in determining the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses.
In Tsutsumi v. Republic, the Supreme Court recognized a Japanese divorce between a Filipino and Japanese citizen. The Court accepted authenticated documents as sufficient proof of divorce and Japanese law, emphasizing procedural flexibility to ensure substantial justice in family matters.
The Supreme Court ruled that pharmacist Joel Tapia was illegally dismissed by GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. Despite GA2’s claim that the former was a mere probationary employee. The Court gave credence to Tapia’s narration of facts leading to his dismissal, and to the documentary evidence he submitted establishing his employment as GA2’s pharmacist since July 2013. Tapia was awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees.
Tapia v. GA2 Pharmaceutical [September 28, 2022] Read More »
In AAA261422 v. XXX261422, the Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari filed by the private complainant assailing the criminal aspect of the case, even without conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). It found that the guideline laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB requiring such conformity does not apply to the present case which was resolved prior to Austria’s finality. The Supreme Court further found that entertaining the abovementioned petition will not put the accused in double jeopardy. It found that the decision of the trial court acquitting the accused was void for lack of jurisdiction, having been rendered in violation of the People’s right to due process. Finally, the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of three counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
In Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused is disqualified from plea bargaining for illegal sale of shabu if the crime involves 1.00 grams or above of the said dangerous drugs. However, failure to raise such disqualification in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, may be deemed a waiver of such disqualification.
In Dela Cruz v. Dumasig, the Supreme Court ruled that the sale between Sps. Dela Cruz and their daughter, Rosalinda, was absolutely simulated. Hence, void. Primarily, in view of Rosalinda’s failure to exercise any act of dominion over the property after the sale. Consequently, the Agreement of Loan with Real Estate Mortgage between Rosalinda and Dumasig is also void, the former not being the absolute owner of the subject lot. The Supreme Court also found the former sale void for violating the prohibition against transfer under Presidential Decree 27.
The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and deliberate actions throughout his entire life evinced his loyalty, love, and fealty to the Philippines.
Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023] Read More »
In Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 7641, which grants retirement pay to employees without a retirement plan, applies retroactively to existing employment contracts. This interpretation favors workers, ensuring financial security upon retirement, even if no prior agreement existed.
Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC [November 14, 1994] Read More »
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.
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 »
