ARIANZA VS.

WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

GR No. L-43352 February 28, 1978
Makaisar, J.:

FACTS:
As of 1960, Manuel Arianza was employed in Central Azucarera De La Carlota,
Inc. Before he entered his employment he was subjected to a thorough medical
examination and was found fit to work. In his first and second assignments that is
packing bagasse and as piler of bagasse, his work required strenuous physical effort
and exertion. And in his last assignment as a water tender in the fire-room, his body
was immersed in hot water up to his waist with the upper part of his body exposed
to cold. Subsequently, Arianza became ill and was found to be suffering from liver
cirrhosis.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illness of Arianza is compensable under the Workmens
Compensation Act.

RULING:
Yes. Petitioners first assignment was to pack bagasse because he was not
provided with mask to protect him from small particles of bagasse, he inhaled these
particles from time to time. After for (4) years, he was assigned as bagasse filer
which required strenuous physical effort and exertion. He had to work either on day
or night shift at 8 hours each shift. As water tender at the fire-room, his body was
half immersed in hot water and the upper half was exposed to cold. All these duties
of petitioner must have adversely affected his death. The presumption of casual
connection remains unrebutted by substantial and credible evidence. Although his
work might not be the direct cause of his illness, which is liver cirrhosis, yet his
working conditions must have weakened his body resistance and aggravated said
illness. (Bacons Inductive Jurisprudence)

APIAG VS JUDGE CANTERO

A.M. NO. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997
Panganiban, J.:

FACTS:
Judge Cantero and Petitioner Apiag got married in 1947 and begot a daughter
who was born the same year. On 1953, their son Glicerio was born. Thereafter,
Judge Cantero left the conjugal home without any apparent cause, and leaving the
petitioner to raise the two children with her meager income as a public school
teacher. For several years, Judge Cantero was never heard of and his whereabouts
unknown not until respondent resurfaced whereupon petitioner begged for support,
however, they were ignored by respondent judge. Subsequently, petitioner learned
that Judge Cantero has another wife, Nieves Ygay, whom he begot 5 children.
Petitioner with her daughter and son charged the respondent, Judge Esmeraldo
Cantero with gross misconduct for allegedly having committed bigamy and
falsification of public documents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Cantero should be held liable for his acts.

RULING:
Yes. Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend that
plausible, and more advised than confident. Above all things, integrity is their
portion and proper virtue. The eminent Francis Bacon wrote the forgoing
exhortation some 400 years ago. Today, it is still relevant and quotable. By the
nature of their functions, judges are revered models of integrity, wisdom, decorum,
competence and propriety. Human as they are, however, magistrates do have their
own weaknesses, frailties, mistakes and even indiscretions. However, due to the
death of Judge Cantero, the Court ordered the dismissal of the case.

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 148334 January 21, 2004
Carpio, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the manner by which the simultaneous regular and
special elections of 2001 were conducted by the COMELEC. Petitioners contend that,
if held simultaneously, a special and regular election must be distinguished in the
documentation as well as in the canvassing of their results. Thirteen senators were
proclaimed from the said election with the 13 th placer to serve that of the remaining
term of Sen. Teofisto Guingona who vacated a seat in the senate to become the Vice
President. Petitioners sought for the nullification of the special election and,
consequently, the declaration of the 13 th elected senator. Petitioners contend that
Comelec is without jurisdiction because it failed to notify the electorate of the
position to be filled in special election hence the people voted without distinction in
one election for 13 seats irrespective of the term of office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have standing to maintain the suit.

RULING:
Yes. In questioning the validity of special election, petitioners assert harm
classified as generalized grievance. They failed to establish direct injury they
suffered from the said governmental act. However, the Court relaxed the
requirement on standing and exercised its discretion to give due course to voters
suit involving the right of suffrage.