PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

G.R. No. 210551 FACTS: The LGU of QC enacted two ordinances. One imposes socialized housing tax (SHT) based on the assessed value of realty, to be paid by landowners. The other imposes a garbage fee (GF) to be paid by landowners based on the floor area or land area of their property. Ferrer, a landowner in QC, want to question the validity of these two (2) ordinances. ISSUE: Is the SHT tantamount to penalty on realty owners? HELD: No, it does not. Property ownership bears a social function. Also, the SHT will improve the status of property owners by increasing investment, raising land value, etc., after the relocation of informal settlers. The foundation is police power. ISSUE: Does the SHT violate equal protection, considering that those who occupy land illegally or informally do not pay while legitimate owners of land are made to pay? HELD: No, equal protection admits of exception. As long as there is real and substantial distinction, which is germane

FACTS: The Tax Reform Code imposed a new rate effective January 1, 2000, affecting cigars and cigarettes. There was a shift away from the ad valorem system. During the transition period, the law states that the excise tax to be paid must not be lower than the tax due from each brand on October 1, 1996. However, the CIR issued a revenue regulation (RR) fixing the rates prior to January 1, 2000. ISSUE: Is the RR valid? HELD: No, the RR is not valid. Fortune Tobacco was erroneously assessed and collected from. Implementing rules and regulations must be in harmony with the law they seek to interpret and enforce. Otherwise, they are ultra vires and taxes collected not supported by the clear language of the law but by additions made by RR must be refunded to the taxpayer.

G.R. No. 194561, September 14, 2016 | DRUGSTORES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND NORTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY AFFAIRS; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. FACTS: RA 7277 mandates a 20% on purchase of medicines in favor of persons with disabilities.  ISSUE: Is this an instance of eminent domain? HELD: No, this is not an exercise of eminent domain. This is an exercise of police power to promote the welfare of the people, especially those who have less in life. Consequently, there is no need for just compensation. The law leaves reasonable and viable economic usefulness; hence, there is no “taking.” ISSUE: Does the law violate the reasonable means test (due process), considering it only requires an ID? HELD: No, it does not violate due process. The implementation

FACTS: Petitioner assails the constitutionality of some provisions of the Tax Reform Code which impose minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) against real estate corporations.  ISSUE: Imposing tax on capital, is the law confiscatory? HELD: No, it does not impose tax on capital. It is imposed on gross income which is gross sales minus sales costs and other expenses. ISSUE: Does it impose additional income tax? HELD: No, MCIT is not additional income tax. It is imposed in lieu of the normal net income tax, and only if the normal income tax is suspiciously low. The MCIT merely approximates the amount of net income tax due from a corporation, pegging the rate at a very much reduced 2% and uses as the base the corporation’s gross income. ISSUE: The Secretary of Finance issued a revenue regulation (RR) which mandates the use of the method of withholding tax at source. The law does not say this. Is the RR valid? Yes, the RR is valid. Implementing regulations are valid unless ultra v

Actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have been transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But, this does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation. Quo warranto proceedings determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if the latter’s claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. In the instance in which the petition for quo warranto is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for quo warranto to determine

He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right of indemnity. (Art. 449 of the Civil Code) The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 546, and in Article 443. The expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided hat the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they may have at the time he enters into possession. (Art. 549 of the Civil Code)

For uncontrollable fear to be considered as an exempting circumstance, it must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. It should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without will but against his will as well. It must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape. (People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844, 01 August 2002, 386 SCRA 74)

For accident to be properly appreciated as an exempting circumstance, the following requisites must concur: [1] that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care ; [2] that the injury is caused by mere accident ; and [3] that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the injury. Appellant must convincingly prove the presence of these elements in order to benefit from the exempting circumstance of accident. (Jose vs. People, G.R. No. 162052, 13 January 2005, 448 SCRA 116)

For passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must be shown that (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused’s mind; and that (3) the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge. (Romera vs. People, G.R No. 151978, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 467)

(a) "Motor Vehicle" shall mean any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. (b) "Passenger automobiles" shall mean all pneumatic-tire vehicles of types similar to those usually known under the following terms: touring car, command car, speedster, sports car, roadster, jeep, cycle, car (except motor wheel and similar small outfits which are classified with motorcycles), coupe, landaulet, closed car, limousine, cabriolet, and

A short sale is a sale of real estate in which the net proceeds from selling the property will fall short of the debts secured by liens against the property. In this case, if all lien holders agree to accept less than the amount owed on the debt, a sale of the property can be accomplished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate) NOTE: Short sale in commercial law is a different concept. The relevant law regarding this is REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8799, otherwise known as "The Securities Regulation Code". Section 24.2. No person shall use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance. Neither shall any short sale be effected nor any stop-loss order be executed in connection with the purchase or sale of any security except in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest for the protection of investors.

Ang isang empleyado na hindi maganda ang pakikisalamuha sa kaniyang mga kasama sa opisina o lugar ng trabaho ay nakapipinsala at nakasisira ng magandang samahan ng mga compañero de trabajo. Kung wala ang kinakailangang pagtutulungan at kooperasyon, hindi makaaandar ng maayos ang anumang organisasyon. Kaya nga, ang pamamahala ng isang negosyo ay may kapangyarihang umaksyon para itama ang situwasyon at protektahan ang organisasyon. Kung ang diferencias personales ay nakaaapekto na sa lugar ng trabaho, naaapektuhan din ang kapayapaan ng kumpanya. Ito ay isang situwasyon na kahalintulad ng pagkawala ng tiwala o pagtitiwala. Ang bagay na ito ay kailangan pa ring patunayan ng panginoon/maypagawa at ang dalawang rekisitos ng makatarungang trato (due process) ay dapat pa ring sundin. (Heavylift vs. CA; G.R. No. 154410, October 20, 2005). An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company for he can upset and strain the working environment. Without the necessar

Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. (Republic Act No. 386) Sa lahat ng ugnayang pangkasunduan, pangariarian at iba pang ugnayan, ang korte ay dapat maging mapagmasid para mapangalagaan ang mga taong may desbentaha dahil sa kanilang pagtanaw ng utang na loob, kamangmangan, kahirapan, kahinaan sa pagiisip, murang edad at iba pang mga kapansanan.

Article 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. (Republic Act No. 386) Magbabayaran pa rin ang isang tao kahit na hindi siya o hindi ang kapabayaan niya ang nagdulot ng pinsala, kawalan o pagkalugi sa ibang tao kung, dahil sa paggawa, kilos o pangyayaring nagdulot ng nasabing pisala, siya ay nakinabang.

Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. (Republic Act No. 386) Sinumang, sa pamamagitan ng kilos, paggawa o pagganap ng ibang tao o sa pamamagitan ng iba pang mga kaparaanan, makakuha o makataglay ng anumang bagay at sa pagkuha o pagtaglay na ito ay mapipinsala ang iba pang tao, lalo na at walang makatarungan, makatuwiran o legal na dahilan para mamalagi sa kaniya ang bagay na ito, ay dapat magsauli nito.

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. (Republic Act No. 386) Sinumang manadyang magdulot ng pagkalugi o pinsala sa ibang tao sa paraang salungat sa moralidad, salungat sa mabuting kagawian o paguugali, o salungat sa patakarang pampubliko ay dapat magbayad ng danyos sa taong napinsala, nalugi o napahamak.

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. (Republic Act No. 386) Sinumang magdulot ng pinsalang sa ibang tao, salungat sa batas at sadya man o hindi sadya, ay dapat magbayad ng danyos sa taong napinsala o napahamak.

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. (Republic Act No. 386) Sa paggamit ng mga karapatan at sa pagtupad ng mga tungkulin, lahat ng tao ay dapat kumilos kalakip ang katarungan, ibigay sa iba kung ano ang nararapat, at panatilihin ang katapatan at kabutihan.

Article 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code. (Republic Act No. 386) Anumang kulang sa Batas Kalakal at iba pang mga pasadyang batas ay pupunan ng Batas Sibil na ito. Sa ibang sabi, ang Batas Sibil na ito ang magpupuno o maghuhusto ng kung anumang kakulangan ng ibang mga batas.

Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (Republic Act No. 386) Ang porma, pormularyo, anyo o dekoro, pati na ang mga rekisitos ng seremonya, ng [1] mga kasunduan, mga [2] huling habilin at iba pang mga [3] pampublikong kasulatan ay nasa ilalim ng batas ng bansa kung saan pinagkasunduan, ginawa o inihanda ang mga ito. Kung ang mga pampublikong kasulatan na

Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling in Stochecker v. Ramirez, business should also be classified as personal property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property. (Laurel vs. Abrogar; Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources vs. Yap)

The right to seek partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. The only exception to the imprescriptibility of an action for partition against a co-owner is when a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership. (Monteroso vs. Court of Appeals) In order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to that of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners, the following elements must concur: (Heirs of Jose Reyes, Jr. vs. Reyes, 2010) [1] The co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation of the co-ownership amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; [2] Such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; [3] The evidence on the repudiation is clear and conclusive ; and [4] His possession is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious. 

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult a question of law may be the basis of good faith. (Article 526 of the Civil Code) Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. (Article 527 of the Civil Code)

Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (Republic Act No. 386) Ang mga muebles at mga inmuebles ay nasa ilalim ng pwersa at epekto ng batas ng bansa kung saan sila matatagpuan. Gayunman, patungkol sa pagmamana, meron man o walang huling habilin, [1] ang hanay o pagkakasunudsunod ng kung sino ang magmamana, [2] ang laki, dami o halaga ng mamanahin, at [2] ang likas na bisa ng mga sitas o nilalaman ng huling habilin ay nasa ilalim ng batas ng bansa kung saan mamamayan ang taong pumanaw, anupaman ang kalikasan ng ari

Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (Republic Act No. 386) Lahat ng batas na tumutukoy sa mga karapatan o mga tungkuling pampamilya, o yaong mga tumutukoy sa katayuan, kalagayan, o legal na kakayahan o kaangkupan ng mga tao ay sapilitang ipatutupad sa mga mamamayan ng Pilipinas, kahit pa sila ay naninirahan o naglalakbay sa ibang bansa.

Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (Republic Act No. 386) Ang mga batas na nagpaparusa at ang mga batas na nangangalaga sa katiwasayan at kaligtasang pampubliko ay sapilitang ipatutupad sa kung sinumang naninirahan o naglalakbay sa lupain at sakop ng Repubika ng Pilipinas, ngunit ang patakarang ito ay napaiilalim pa rin sa mga panuntunan ng pandaigdigang batas at sa mga nakasaad sa mga kasunduang internasyunal.

Article 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. (Republic Act No. 386) Kapag binanggit ng batas ang mga sumusunod na salita, ganito ang kanilang ibig sabihin. Ang isang "taon" ay tatlong-daan at animnapu't limang araw. Ang isang "buwan" ay tatlumpung araw. Ang isang "araw" ay dalawampu't apat na oras. Ang isang "gabi" ay mula paglubog ng araw hanggang sa susunod na pagsikat nito. Kapag binaggit ng batas ang isang buwan sa pangalan nito, bibilangin o kukwentahin ang haba nito gamit ang bilang ng araw na nararapat sa nabanggit na buwan. Sa pagbibila

Article 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. (Republic Act No. 386) Hindi ipinagpapalagay ng batas ang mga kagawian o kaugalian. Dapat itong patunayan gamit ang mga panuntunan ng korte sa katibayan. Sa ibang sabi, ang kagawian o kaugalian ay paksang hindi ginagamitan ng batas kundi ginagamitan ng pruweba.

Article 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced. (Republic Act No. 386) Anumang kagawian o kaugalian na kontra o hindi sangayon sa batas, sa kaayusang pampubliko o sa patakarang pampubliko ay hindi kinukunsinti. Pinapayagan lamang ang mga kagawian o kaugalian na hindi kotra sa mga nabanggit.

Article 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. (Republic Act No. 386) Kung sakaling magkaroon ng pagdududa sa kung ano ang kahulugan o kung paano ipatutupad ang batas, dapat ipagpalagay na layunin ng batasan na manaig ang katuwiran, ang tama at ang katarungan. Lahat ng pagdududa sa pagpapakahulugan at pagpapatupad ng anumang batas ay dapat lutasin habang isinasaisip na layon ng batas ang katuwiran, ang tama at ang katarungan.

Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (Republic Act No. 386) Hindi maaring tumanggi ang isang korte o hukom na magpataw ng hatol dahil lamang sa ang batas ay tahimik, malabo or kulang. Sa ibang sabi, tahimik man, malabo man o kulang man ang batas, dapat pa ring maglabas ng desisyon ang korte o hukom para malutas ang isang kaso.

Article 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (Republic Act No. 386) Ang mga desisyon ng Korte Suprema na tumutukoy sa pagpapairal o pagpapakahulugan ng mga batas at ng Saligang Batas ay bahagi ng kaayusang legal ng Pilipinas. Sa ibang sabi, kapag naglabas ng hatol ang Korte Supreme sa kung ano ang ibig-sabihin ng mga batas at ng Saligang Batas at kung paano ito dapat ipatupad, ang nasabing hatol ay may katulad na pwersa at epekto ng batas na tinutukoy nito.

Article 7(c). Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (Republic Act No. 386) Anumang takda, utos, tuntunin o gawa ng pamamahala, lalung-lalo na ng Presidente, ay hindi maaaring lumabag sa batas o sa Saligang Batas. Walang bisa, pwersa o epekto ang anumang gawa ng pamamahala kung hindi sangayon sa batas o sa Saligang Batas.

Article 7(b). When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. (Republic Act No. 386) Kapag dineklara ng korte na labag o hindi sangayon ang isang batas sa Saligang Batas, mapawawalang bisa ang nasabing batas at mananaig ang Saligang Batas. Walang pwersa, bisa o epekto ang isang batas na salungat sa mga nakasaad sa Saligang Batas.

Article 7(a). Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.  (Republic Act No. 386) Napapalitan o natatanggal lamang ang isang batas ng mga sumusunod na batas. Ang batas kahapon ay maaaring palitan, baguhin o tanggalin ng batas bukas. Bawat batas ay may pwersa at epekto na hindi pinahihina ng hindi paggamit, ng kagawian o ng paguugaling labag dito. Sa ibang sabi, hindi mapapatawad ang paglabag sa batas dahil lamang hindi na ito nagagamit o wala nang sumusunod, o dahil lamang may kultura or kagawiang labag sa nasabing batas.

Article 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (Republic Act No. 386) Sinumang may karapatan ay may kapangyarihang isantabi o ipaubaya ang kanyang karapatan, maliban na lang kung labag ang pagsasantabing ito o pagpapaubayang ito sa batas. Ibig lang sabihin ay maaaring itakda ng batas na hindi puwedeng talikdan ang karapatan. Bukod dito, hindi rin maaaring isantabi o ipaubaya ang karapatan kung kontra ang pagwawaksing ito sa pampublikong kaayusan, patakarang pampubliko, moralidad o magandang kaugalian, at hindi rin maaari kung magpapahamak ito sa ibang tao na may karapatang inaalagaan ng batas.

Article 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. (Republic Act No. 386) Lahat ng kilos, gawa, transaksyon o anupamang aktibidad na kontra o hindi sangayon sa batas na naguutos na gawin or huwag gawin ang anumang bagay ay, sa mata ng batas, walang bisa. Walang bisa ang mga bagay na ito, maliban na lang kung ang batas mismo ang nagtatakda na kahit nalabag ang kautusan ay may bisa pa rin ang lumalabag na kilos, gawa, transaksyon o anupamang aktibidad.

Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (Republic Act No. 386) Lahat ng batas ay walang bisa sa nakaraan. Ang bisa ng isang batas ay makakaapekto lamang sa hinaharap, maliban na lang kung ang batas mismo ang nagtatakda na mayroon itong bisa sa nakaraan.

Article 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (Republic Act No. 386) Hindi maaaring gamitin ang pagkawalang-alam sa batas para matakasan ang mga epekto nito. Lahat ng tao ay dapat sumunod sa batas. Hindi pinapatawad ang paglabag dahil lamang sa kamangmangan sa batas.

Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. (Republic Act No. 386) Lahat ng batas ay magkakabisa lamang labinlimang araw matapos silang mailathala sa Opisyal na Pahayagan o anumang pahayagan na may pangkahalatang mambabasa sa Pilipinas, maliban na lang kung magtatakda ang mga ito ng mas mahaba o mas maikling bilang ng araw o haba ng panahon. Ang Batas Sibil na ito ay magkakabisa matapos ang isang taon pagkalathala.

Article 1. This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines." (Republic Act No. 386) May dating Codigo Sibil na galing sa mga Kastila. Ito ay Batas Sibil na sariling atin pero base pa rin ang karamihan ng mga sitas nito sa Codigo Sibil. Naaprubahan ito noong June 18, 1949.

Accion publiciana, also known as accion plenaria de posesion, is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independent of title – it refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of thy property. (Madrid vs. Mapoy)

The National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) reminds Filipinos that "[r]esigned employees are still entitled to 13th month pay." It is equivalent to one twelfth (1/12) of your basic salary earned within a calendar year (12-month period).

The victim need not own the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect. QUOTE:  The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling or morada in this case. The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral part thereof and therefore it includes the staircase of the house and much more, its terrace. When a crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime. (People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 823)

Project Jurisprudence suggests that Congress enact the following draft as law: Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Section 2. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. Section 3. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Section 4. It is hereby confirmed that the people have a right to film or take video of their transactions with the government, local or national, including government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). They shall not be questioned or criticized for doing so. They shall not be requested or ordered to stop filming. Section 5. Any government employee, officer or official questioning or criticizing any person transactin

CASE DIGEST: CAPT. WILFREDO G. ROQUERO, Petitioner, v. THE CHANCELLOR OF UP-MANILA; THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL (ADT) OF UP-MANILA; ATTY. ZALDY B. DOCENA; EDEN PERDIDO; ISABELLA LARA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS OF THE ADT; and IMELDA O. ABUTAL, Respondents. G.R. No.181851; March 9, 2010. FACTS: Petitioner is an employee of UP-Manila assigned at the PGH Security Division as Special Police Captain.Private respondent Imelda O. Abutal is a Lady Guard of Ex-Bataan Security Agency who was applying for a position in the security force assigned at UP-PGH. Private respondent Abutal filed a complaint with then Chancellor of UP-Manila Perla D. Santos-Ocampo for Grave Misconduct against petitioner Capt. Roquero. The Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) composed of Atty. Zaldy B. Docena, Eden Perdido and Isabella Lara, was organized to hear the instant case.The Prosecution presented its only witness, private respondent Abutal. After the completion of

CASE DIGEST: DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON,Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C. LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE LA CRUZ and AGUSTIN C. DOROGA, Respondents. G.R. No. 189466; February 11, 2010. FACTS: Petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list organization that won a seat in the House of Representatives during the 2007 elections. Respondents Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga, all registered voters, filed a petition for quo warranto with respondent HRET against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitioner Abayon, alleging that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a party-list seat in the House of Representatives, since it did not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Petitioner Abayon countered that the COMELEC had already confirmed the status of Aangat Tayo as a national multi-sectoral party-list organization representing the workers, woelecmen, youth, urban

ALPHA SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/JUNEL M. CHAN and/or CHUO-KAIUN COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ELEOSIS V. CALO, Respondent. G.R. No. 192034; January 13, 2014 FACTS:  Respondent Eleosis V. Calo worked for petitioners, Alpha Ship Management Corporation, Junel M. Chan and their foreign principal, Chuo-Kaiun Company Limited (CKCL), since 1998 under seven employment contracts. On February 17, 2004, respondent was once more hired by petitioners as Chief Cook on board CKCLs vessel, MV Iris. Respondent commenced his duties as Chief Cook aboard MV Iris on March 5, 2004. On July 13, 2004, while MV Iris was A in Shanghai, China, respondent suffered back pain on the lower part of his lumbar region and urinated with solid particles. On checkup, the doctor found him suffering from urinary tract infection and renal colic, and was given antibiotics. When respondents condition did not improve, he consulted another doctor in Chile sometime in August 2004, and was found to have kidney problem