Mesiera Law Office

Mesiera Law Office Attorney-at-Law & Notary Public

20/02/2024

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.

14/02/2024

SC Dismisses Sheriff Who Punched Litigant |

A sheriff who inflicted bodily harm on a litigant while enforcing a writ of ex*****on has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) that Christopher T. Perez, Sheriff IV of Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Zambales (Sheriff Perez) should be penalized for grave abuse of authority and gross insubordination.

The Court concluded that Sheriff Perez indeed inflicted bodily harm upon Hanif and is hence guilty of grave abuse of authority, which is defined as a misdemeanor by a public officer, who under color of his or her office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury.

The Court also underscored how sheriffs, who serve and implement court writs, execute processes, and carry into effect orders of the court, are expected to know the rules of procedure pertaining to their functions as court officers and show a high degree of professionalism at all times.

The Court similarly found Sheriff Perez guilty of gross insubordination for his repeated non-compliance with the OCA’s directive to furnish his comment. Such defiance constituted clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA, held the Court.

The Court further stressed that court personnel subject to administrative complaints cannot just ignore directives for them to comment on a complaint as such shows utter lack of respect for the Court and the institution they represent.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-sheriff-who-punched-litigant/.

10/02/2024

SC Commends Courts with Highest Clearance Rates |

The Supreme Court has identified and duly recognized the judges of first- and second-level courts that registered the 10 highest clearance rates per judicial region for 2022.

“These are the judges who exemplified exceptional commitment to the pursuit of efficient case disposition even amid the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Their unwavering dedication, to be sure, stands as a beacon of inspiration for all judges to emulate. It is only fitting that this Court extends its utmost commendation to these exemplary judges,” said the Court.

The Court underscored how efficient case disposition is a crucial component of the administration of justice. “By disposing of cases with fairness and dispatch, a court is able to dispense timely justice for all parties involved, promote the integrity of the judicial process, and, ultimately, foster public trust in the courts and the Judiciary,” stressed the court.

The Court further emphasized: “This truism is the essence of the principle of ‘timely and fair’ delivery of justice presently embodied in the Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI) 2022-2027.”

For a complete list of the top 10 courts per judicial region, you may view the full text of A.M. No. 23-08-14-SC at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/23-08-14-sc-re-list-of-top-10-courts-per-judicial-region-with-the-most-number-of-filed-and-disposed-cases-and-their-clearance-rate/.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-commends-courts-with-highest-clearance-rates/.

06/02/2024

SC Dismisses Three CA Employees for Using Shabu |

The Supreme Court has imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service against three employees of the Court of Appeals (CA) for testing positive, for the second time, for the use of illegal drug methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the Court En Banc found Garry U. Caliwan (Caliwan), Edmundo T. Malit (Malit), and Frederick C. Mauricio (Mauricio), all employees of the CA, administratively liable for the serious charge of Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances under Section 14(o) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.

In resolving the case, the Court first clarified that the use of prohibited drugs now squarely falls under the serious charge of Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances, not Grave Misconduct, when it is committed by members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, as governed by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

Further, under A.M. No. 23-02-11-SC or the Guidelines for the Implementation of a Drug-Free Policy in the Philippine Judiciary, there are two scenarios under which a court employee shall be charged with the Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances: (1) when he or she tests positive for drug use through a random drug test; and (2) when he or she voluntarily submits himself or herself to drug testing and is found positive for drug use for a second time, despite having completed the treatment and/or drug rehabilitation program.

Applying the foregoing to the present case, the Court found that the administrative liabilities of Caliwan, Malit, and Mauricio for the Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances have been sufficiently proven not only by the positive results of the random drug test held in 2022, but also by their own admissions.

The Court thus agreed with the JIB that the penalty of dismissal from the service is proper and commensurate with the gravity of the offense that respondents committed considering that this is the second time that they have tested positive for dangerous drugs in a random drug test, and they did so after having been given a chance by the CA to undergo treatment and rehabilitation.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-three-ca-employees-for-using-shabu/.

03/02/2024

RTC Clerk Dismissed for Demanding Money in Exchange for Release of Certificate │

The Supreme Court has meted out on a clerk of the Butuan City Regional Trail Court (RTC) the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service for gross misconduct.

The case stemmed from a letter-complaint from a person under the nom de plume “Danilo D. Divinagracia” (complainant) who accused Michael Vincent L. Ozon (Ozon), Clerk III of Branch 1, RTC, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, of asking for the amount of PHP 25,000.00 in exchange for the release of the certificate of finality of the former’s case for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Upon investigation by Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo (Executive Judge Calo), it was revealed that at one time, a litigant came crying to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court because the certificate of finality in her case had not yet been issued after repeatedly visiting the court despite giving Ozon PHP 500.00 for its release.

Thereafter, Executive Judge Calo obtained sworn statements from two private individuals who revealed that respondent offered “facilitation services” in declaration of nullity cases. They stated that instead of the usual number of months it would take for processing the service of the decision and the corresponding return card, Ozon would expedite the same process into merely three days by sending the decisions via private courier to the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) in exchange for PHP 5,000.00.

The Court, in a Per Curiam Decision, ruled that Ozon’s bare denial is self-serving and a weak defense vis-à-vis the RTC Branch Clerk of Court’s positive testimony which corroborated complainant’s allegation that Ozon demanded money from litigants for the release of certificates of finality.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtc-clerk-dismissed-for-demanding-money-in-exchange-for-release-of-certificate/

01/02/2024

SC Imposes Imprisonment for Sale of Counterfeit Bills │

The Supreme Court has affirmed the penalty of imprisonment imposed on a person for illegal possession and use of false bank notes.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Allan Gacasan (Gacasan) which challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding Gacasan guilty of violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

In a test-buy operation conducted in Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, the Criminal Investigation Detection Group (CIDG) arrested Gacasan after the latter offered to sell counterfeit bills to a confidential CIDG agent. Gacasan was caught in possession of 100 pieces of counterfeit 1000-peso bills and 25 pieces of counterfeit 500-peso bills. The said bills were confirmed to be counterfeit upon examination by Atty. Andrew E. Asperin (Atty. Asperin) of the Currency Issue and Integrity Office of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

The RTC convicted Gacasan for the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Article 168 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the conviction, prompting the present petition before the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-imposes-imprisonment-for-sale-of-counterfeit-bills/

29/01/2024

SC Upholds Validity of Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement |

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc., (IDEALS), et al. and Fair Trade Alliance (FairTrade), et al. (collectively, petitioners) challenging the validity of the JPEPA.

The JPEPA is a comprehensive agreement aimed at increasing trade and investment opportunities between Japan and the Philippines and strengthening economic relations between the two countries by encouraging a freer transborder flow of goods, services, and capital.

In denying the petitions, the Court ruled that the JPEPA does not facilitate the indiscriminate importation of hazardous and toxic wastes in the Philippines.

The JPEPA acknowledges that the parties are entitled to adopt and implement policies necessary to protect the health of their people and the environment. The JPEPA also reaffirms the Philippines’ and Japan’s rights and obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

The Court further ruled that the JPEPA, which includes an Annex listing the measures that Japan and the Philippines excluded from the coverage of their commitments, sufficiently protects the constitutional mandate on both ownership and exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources. The same measures embody the mandate of ensuring the protection and conservation of our national economy and patrimony.

The Court also held that while the Philippines committed to grant market access through commercial presence to certain public utility sectors, this commitment is subject to the limitation on ownership of public utilities by foreign entities imposed under Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution.

Neither does the JPEPA violate the constitutional restriction to Filipino citizens of the practice of profession, as adequate reservations have been made in the Agreement both for market access and national treatment, held the Court.

With these limitations stated in the JPEPA, the Philippines and Japan are mandated to ensure that the constitutional restrictions on foreign equity participation shall always be followed, particularly when services are supplied through commercial presence.

As to the wisdom of the decision to reduce or eliminate tariff duties on some Philippine tariff lines, the Court ruled that this is a matter of foreign relations, over which the Constitution has given authority to the political branches.

The authority to manage the country’s external affairs and shape foreign policy, which includes the power to negotiate and enter into treaties, is solely bestowed on the President, who represents the country in all external relations, stressed the Court.

Read G.R. Nos. 184635 and 185366 (IDEALS, Inc. v. Senate) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/184635-185366-initiative-for-dialogue-and-empowerment-through-alternative-legal-services-inc-ideals-inc-et-al-vs-the-senate-of-the-philippines-et-al-fair-trade-alliance-et-al-vs-the-sena/.

11/01/2024

SC Grants Permanent Environmental Protection Order to Preserve Forest in Mountain Province |

The Supreme Court has ordered the cessation of bulldozing, cultivating, building of improvements, and other earth-moving activities that cause irreparable damage to a forest zone in Sabangan, Mountain Province.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez the Court’s Second Division denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by Spouses Robles and Rose Maliones, et al. (petitioners). The petitions challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) grant of environmental reliefs under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in favor of Mario S. Timario, Jr., et al. (respondents).

In resolving the petitions, the Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and the CA that there exists an actual or imminent threat that can be attributed to petitioners, including the activities they are conducting on the subject land that violate environmental laws and cause prejudice to the life, health, or property of residents of Barangay Data, Sabangan, Mountain Province.

The Court also affirmed that since the subject land is presumptively part of the public forest, the acts of the petitioners of occupying, fencing off, clearing, planting on, sowing on, and building on the subject land are contrary to the provisions of PD 705, particularly Sections 51, 52, 53, and 78.

The Court added that there is no evidence on record that petitioners obtained or possessed the requisite permits or authorization to enter, occupy, and clear the forest land they claim. In fact, the City Environment and Natural Resources Office expressly declared that petitioners’ earth-moving activities were being done on a portion of the public forest. These facts were not rebutted by the petitioners, held the Court.

The Court also clarified that the present petition under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is not the proper remedy to assail the validity of the tax declarations in the name of petitioners, nor to seek the recognition of the native title petitioners claim to have inherited from their predecessors.

Thus, the Court held it shall “refrain from resolving the underlying issues on the ownership of the subject land and the recognition of the parties as indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples in the present environmental case which must be addressed in the proper case and in the correct forum.”

“Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from granting reliefs available to [respondents], in accordance with Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,” stressed the Court.

The Court thus made permanent the TEPO earlier issued by the RTC, and issued an EPO, ordering petitioners to cease and desist from bulldozing, cultivating, introducing improvements, other earth-moving activities, cutting trees, kaingin, and other illegal activities that cause irreparable damage to the forest zone and pollution of the soil, water, and the environment.

They were also enjoined from claiming private ownership over the communal forest of Batacang and Am-amoting covered by their tax declarations. Petitioners were likewise ordered to remove their barbed wire fences that restrict the community from the use and enjoyment of the communal forest zone.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-permanent-environmental-protection-order-to-preserve-forest-in-mountain-province/.

05/01/2024

SC Reiterates Consent of Adopter’s Children Required in Petitions for Adoption |

The consent of the adopter’s legitimate children, who are at least 10 years old, is required for a petition for adoption to prosper.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, as it denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena Bagcat-Gullas (Bagcat-Gullas). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) setting aside the adoption decree previously granted in favor of Bagcat-Gullas.

In dismissing the present petition, the Court emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, is clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for the adoption to be valid.

Reiterating its 2014 ruling in Castro v. Gregorio, the Court held that the “consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitimes, with another person.”

Further, the Court stressed that personal service of summons on the legitimate children is needed to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. Constructive notice does not suffice.

In the present case, the Court found that as the respondents were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings, their written consent was necessary.

As legitimate children of one of the adopters, Jose, respondents are thus indispensable parties to the petition.

Since the respondents were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons upon them, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption is void, ruled the Court.

“The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such, the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present,” said the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-consent-of-adopters-children-required-in-petitions-for-adoption/. Read G.R. No. 264146 (Bagcat-Gullas v. Gullas, et al., August 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/264146-nena-bagcat-gullas-vs-joselito-f-gullas-joie-marie-f-gullas-yu-and-john-vincent-f-gullas/.

04/01/2024

BIR Tax Deadline

1 Monday
SUBMISSION of Consolidated Return of All Transactions based on the Reconciled Data of Stockbrokers — December 16–31, 2023
SUBMISSION of Engagement Letters and Renewals or Subsequent Agreements for Financial Audit by Independent CPAs — Fiscal Year beginning March 1, 2024

"Deadlines which fall on Weekends, Holidays and Non-Working days shall automatically be moved to the next working day."

04/01/2024

BIR Tax Deadline

31 Sunday
SUBMISSION of Manufacturers’/Assemblers’/Importers’ Sworn Statement of each Particular Brand/Model of Automobile, Alcohol Products, To***co Products and Sweetened Beverages — 2nd Semester of 2023

"Deadlines which fall on Weekends, Holidays and Non-Working days shall automatically be moved to the next working day."

03/01/2024

SC: Forged Deed of Assignment Cannot Transfer Copyright |

While copyright may be assigned, the assignment must be valid before the assignee can enjoy the rights and possess the remedies of the assignor of the copyright.

Thus held the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, partly granting the petition for review on certiorari filed by M.Y. Intercontinental Trading Corporation (M.Y. Intercontinental), Tedwin T. Uy (Uy), and Allianz Marketing and Publishing Corporation (Allianz Marketing). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) finding that petitioners committed copyright infringement against St. Mary’s Publishing Corporation (St. Mary’s Publishing).

In resolving the petition, the Court stressed that copyright owners have exclusive economic rights in the reproduction and distribution of the original copy of their work through sale and other forms of transfer of ownership. The owners, by themselves or through others, may also authorize the conduct of these activities. While these rights may be assigned, entirely or partly, the assignment, must be contained in a written declaration, stating the intention to assign the copyright in whole or in part, said the Court.

In the present case, the Court upheld the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as to the validity of the Deed of Assignment.

“The totality of the evidence shows that Catabijan’s signature in the Deed of Assignment was forged. The trial judge personally examined and compared Catabijan’s signatures on the documents on record and found significant differences in his signature in the Deed of Assignment and the other documents,” held the Court, which also appreciated the findings of the Quezon City Police District Crime Laboratory and the National Bureau of Investigation that the signatures were not made by one and the same person.

The Court added that since Catabijan’s signature was forged, there was no consent given to perfect the contract of assignment, rendering the Deed of Assignment fictitious and void. Thus, St. Mary’s Publishing’s copyright over the subject books was not transferred in whole or in part to M.Y. Intercontinental.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-forged-deed-of-assignment-cannot-transfer-copyright/.

Address

Lucena
4301

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Mesiera Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category