The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision allowing David Lim to amend his petition orally and multiple times to accurately reflect the conjugal assets. The Court emphasized liberal construction of procedural rules to serve justice and clarified that oral motions may be valid if due process is observed during hearings.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Script2010, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) appeal was invalid because it failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that once a decision becomes final and executory, it cannot be modified, ensuring the finality of judgments.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Script2010, Inc. [February 17, 2025] Read More »
The Supreme Court dismissed the Department of Science and Technology’s (DOST) petition challenging the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of step increment differentials paid alongside longevity pay to 101 employees from 2005 to 2008. The Court ruled the petition was filed too late, as the COA’s decision had become final years earlier. Additionally, only those directly held liable under the Notice of Disallowance had the legal standing to appeal. This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and clarifies that government personnel cannot receive both step increments and longevity pay simultaneously.
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of graft and malversation charges against former Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy Tumang and businessman William Colis. The Court found that the Office of the Ombudsman violated their right to a speedy disposition of cases due to inordinate delays in the preliminary investigation and filing of charges.
In People v. Buit, the Supreme Court convicted Alberto and Tessie Buit of illegal recruitment. They promised overseas jobs without proper authorization and collected fees from applicants. The Court emphasized that engaging in recruitment activities without a valid license constitutes illegal recruitment, regardless of monetary exchange.
In 2013, Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. (TSTSI) hired Stephanie Maitim and others as nursing aides for employment in Saudi Arabia. However, they were later compelled to sign new contracts reclassifying them as housekeepers with reduced salaries and longer working hours. After completing over three years of service, they were denied repatriation until local authorities intervened. Back in the Philippines, they filed complaints for underpayment and other labor violations. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, awarding salary differentials and benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld this decision, adding entitlements for food allowance and overtime pay. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s ruling, dismissing their claims. The Supreme Court later reinstated the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing the employer’s burden to prove the payment of proper compensation and resolving doubts in favor of the workers.
Maitim v. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. [January 15, 2025] Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that Campbridge’s registration of the “GREENSEAL” trademark was invalid. Greenseal Malaysia had prior use of the name globally, including in the Philippines since 2004. The Court emphasized that trade names of nationals from Paris Convention member states are protected without registration.
In 1987, Leoncio Melocoton married Jennifer Pring while still married to Susan Jimenez. In 2005, he sought to nullify his marriage to Pring, claiming bigamy. The Supreme Court upheld the marriage’s validity, ruling that Melocoton failed to prove his prior marriage was still subsisting during his marriage to Pring.
In People v. Estregan, the Supreme Court ruled that violations of procurement laws don’t automatically result in a public officer’s conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The prosecution must prove the officer’s role, evident bad faith or gross negligence, and that such actions caused undue injury or unwarranted benefits.
In Martin v. Ala, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala, filed by her former brother-in-law, Denis Guy Martin. The Court found Atty. Ala administratively liable for urging police officers to shoot her nephew during an altercation, violating ethical standards. Additionally, she was reprimanded for using abusive language in legal pleadings. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months and one year, to be served successively.
