Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Case Digest on LLORENTE V. ANDIGANBAYAN 19 Jan.

2000 Facts: A, a mayor, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of RA 3019.Pending the case, Congress enacted RA 7975, limiting the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. A then contended that by virtue of RA 7975, the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over his case. Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan was divested of jurisdiction Held: No. To determine whether the official is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, reference should be made to RA 6758 and the Index of Occupational Services, position Titles, and Salary Grades. A municipal mayor is classified under Salary Grade 27. Thus, the case against A is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

ALBENSON vs. COURT OF APPEALSFACTS: Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific BankingCorporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source of check and laterd i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e b e l o n g e d t o o n e E u g e n i o B a l t a o . A l b e n s o n m a d e a n extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that thesignature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It waslater discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages thebusiness establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of suchinformation. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson. ISSUE: Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise. RULING: Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have the intent to cause damageto the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them. There wasno abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22.Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based onff inquiries: SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao Bank said signature belonged to EB EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and theIII. There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that: the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex a n d h u m i l i a t e a person and that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his chargeswere false and groundlessElements of abuse of right under Article 19: 1. there is a legal right or duty2 . e x e r c i s e d i n b a d f a i t h 3.for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring anotherElements under Article 21: contra

bonus mores:1 . t h e r e i s a n a c t w h i c h i s l e g a l 2.but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy3 . i t i s d o n e w i t h i n t e n t t o injureA person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will n a t u r a l l y s e e k w a y s t o compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuerof the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of anaction does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R.C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs againstrespondent Baltao. BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO J. MARASIGAN,respondents.G.R. No. 120639. September 25, 1998FACTS: Marasigan, a lawyer, is a BPI credit card holder. His contractual relationswith BPI went on smoothly until October 1989, when his statement of accountamounting to P8,987.84 was not paid in due time. BPI demanded immediatepayment, and required him to issue a check in favor of BPI, otherwise his card willbe suspended. Marasigan issued a postdated check (PDC) in favor of BPI.BPI, having been informed of the PDC only a week after receipt, already sent a letterto Marasigan, informing him of the temporary suspension of the privileges of hiscard. He was also told to refrain from using his card to avoid anyinconvenience/embarrassment and that unless he settles his outstanding accountwithin 5 days from receipt of the letter, his membership will be permanentlycancelled.On the other hand, confident that he had settled his account with the issuance of the postdated check, Marasigan invited some guests at Caf Adriatico (there isalso no showing that he received the letter from BPI before he went to CafAdriatico). When he presented his credit card to paythe bill, the it wasdishonored and one of his guests paid the bill by using her own credit card.Marasigan asked BPI to withhold the deposit of his postdated check and to returnthe said check to him because according to him, BPI violated theiragreement that once Marasigan issues the check to the to cover hisunpaid account, BPI will not suspend the effectivity of the card .Marasigan filed a complaint for damages against BPI before the trial court, and thetrial court ruled in favor of him. The decision was affirmed by the CA. ISSUE/S: 1.W/N BPI had the right to suspend the credit card of the Marasigan2.W/N the trial court and CA erred in holding BPI liable for damages HELD: 1 . Y E S 2 . Y E S

RATIO: Under the terms and conditions of the credit card, signed by Marasigan, any cardwith outstanding balances after 30 days from original billing shall automatically besuspended. Marasigan admitted that he did not pay within 30 days for his originalbilling. BPI could automatically suspend his credit card.

Even though there was an arrangement between the parties (that uponissuance of a check, the card wouldnt be suspended) the court found thatMarasigan was not able to comply with his obligation. The purpose of the arrangement between the parties was for the immediatepayment of Marasigans outstanding account, in order that his credit card would notb e s u s p e n d e d . A s a g r e e d u p o n b y t h e p a r t i e s , o n t h e f o l l o w i ng day, privater e s p o n d e n t d i d i s s u e a c h e c k . H o w e v e r , t h e c h e c k w a s p o s t d a t e d 1 5 December 1989. Settled is the doctrine that a check is only a substitutefor money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, byi t s e l f o p e r a t e a s p a y m e n t . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e c a s e o f a postdated check.Thus, the issuance by the private respondent of the postdated check wasnot effective payment. It did not comply with his obligation under thearrangement with BPI. BPI corporation was therefore justified in suspending his credit card.While Marasigan suffered damages as a result of the cancellation of his credit card,there is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegalinvasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from theinjury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damagesuffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which theloss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establishthat such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to theplaintiff. In the case at bar, it was Marasigan's failure to settle his obligation whichc a u s e d t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f h i s c r e d i t c a r d a n d s u b s e q u e n t d i s h o n o r a t C a f Adriatico

Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs Court of Appeals


on February 6, 2013

342 SCRA 213 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Proof of Foreign Law
In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by pilots familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines,

Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1 del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing the river. ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan laws. HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory: (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office. And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts. Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was engaged.

NORSE vs.

MANAGEMENT

CO.

(PTE)

and

PACIFIC

SEAMEN

SERVICES,

INC.,

petitioners,

NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, HON. CRESCENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, OSCAR M. TORRES, REBENE C. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. ABORDO, respondents.

Facts:

Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. Abordo, was the Second Engineer of M.T.

"Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). The M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. In her complaint for compensation benefits filed before the National Seamen Board, private respondent alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners should be based on the law where the vessel is registered. Petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore instead must be based on Boards Memeorandum Circular No. 25. Ministry of Labor and Employment ordered the petitioner to pay jointly and severally the private respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Ministry of Labor but same decision. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether

or

not

the

law

of

Singapore

ought

to

be

applied

in

this

case.

Held:

The SC denied the petition. It has always been the policy of this Board, as enunciated in a long line of cases, that in cases of valid claims for benefits on account of injury or death while in the course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel is registered shall be considered. In Section 5(B) of the Employment Agreement between petitioner and respondents husband states that In the event of illness or injury to Employee arising out of and in the course of his employment and not due to his own willful misconduct, EMPLOYER will provide employee with free medical attention. If such illness or injury incapacitates the EMPLOYEE to the extent the EMPLOYEE's services must be terminated as determined by a qualified physician designated by the EMPLOYER and provided such illness or injury was not due in part or whole to his willful act, neglect or misconduct compensation shall be paid to employee in accordance with and subject to the limitations of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the Republic of the Philippines or the Workmen's Insurance Law of registry of the vessel whichever is greater. Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi