amicusph

Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023]

Leave a Comment / Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Case Digests, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Political Law, Remedial Law /

The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and deliberate actions throughout his entire life evinced his loyalty, love, and fealty to the Philippines.

Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023] Read More »

Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil. [January 22, 2024]

Leave a Comment / 2024 Case Digests, Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Labor Law, Labor Relations /

The Supreme Court ruled that Fitness First’s personal trainers were regular employees, not independent contractors, due to the company’s control over their work schedules, quotas, and performance standards. The Court ordered the payment of backwages, separation pay, pro-rata 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.

Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil. [January 22, 2024] Read More »

Ortigas v. Court of Appeals [February 12, 2024]

Leave a Comment / 2024 Case Digests, Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Civil Procedure, Remedial Law /

In Ortigas v. Court of Appeals, a mortgage encumbrance was executed in favor of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest. However, the property was foreclosed and sold on a public auction without their participation. A TCT was issued in favor of the highest bidder, Carredo, upon which a memorandum of encumbrance was annotated. Upon Carredo’s petition, the trial court granted the cancellation of the said memorandum of encumbrance. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for the annulment of judgement is proper to challenge the aforementioned trial court decision.

Ortigas v. Court of Appeals [February 12, 2024] Read More »

Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. [April 3, 2024]

Leave a Comment / 2024 Case Digests, Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Labor Law, Labor Relations /

In Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that verbal abuse and indifferent behavior by an employer, which force an employee to resign, constitute constructive dismissal. The Court emphasized that such hostile actions make working conditions unbearable, leaving the employee no choice but to resign.

Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. [April 3, 2024] Read More »

Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024]

Leave a Comment / 2024 Case Digests, Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Legal and Judicial Ethics /

In Intia v. Ferrer, the Supreme Court addressed allegations against Judge Ferrer, including misconduct, business involvement, case delays, and courtroom demeanor. The Court dismissed most charges due to insufficient evidence but fined Judge Ferrer ₱35,000 for violating rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private business activities.

Intia v. Ferrer [May 13, 2024] Read More »

National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024]

Leave a Comment / 2024 Case Digests, Bar 2025 Chair's Digest, Local Taxation, Taxation Law /

In National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Food Authority (NFA) is exempt from paying real property taxes. The Court held that, as a government instrumentality, it is immune from the local governments’ power to tax under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. Moreover, its properties are properties of public dominion. Hence, further exempted from real property taxes under Sec. 234(a) of the LGC.

National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum [May 21, 2024] Read More »

Union Bank v. Santibanez [February 23, 2005]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Civil Law, Law on Succession /

In Union Bank v. Santibañez, the Supreme Court ruled that creditors must file monetary claims against a deceased person’s estate in probate court, not directly against heirs. This ensures proper estate settlement and debt payment. Additionally, heirs are only liable for debts if they were parties to the original obligation.

Union Bank v. Santibanez [February 23, 2005] Read More »

Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety [November 28, 1956]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Civil Law, Law on Succession /

In Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety’s obligations are transmissible to heirs upon death. The Court allowed Luzon Surety’s contingent claims against Hemady’s estate, emphasizing that such obligations are not strictly personal and thus pass to successors.

Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety [November 28, 1956] Read More »

Scroll to Top