Sugar producers challenged a regulation that imposed VAT on raw sugar, arguing it was unconstitutional. The trial court issued an injunction against the regulation. However, a subsequent regulation restored the VAT exemption for raw sugar. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot due to this supervening event.
In Caringal v. Judge Sy, the Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint against Judge Cornelio Sy, who was accused of gross misconduct and ignorance of the law for allowing a settlement without the complainant’s explicit consent. The Court emphasized that attorneys are presumed authorized to act on behalf of their clients unless proven otherwise. It also highlighted that administrative complaints should not replace proper judicial remedies.
In Spouses Calimlim v. Goño, the Supreme Court ruled that structures built by the Calimlims on public foreshore land without government approval constituted a public nuisance. These unauthorized constructions obstructed public access and caused environmental harm.
In People v. Tuazon, the Supreme Court convicted Nell Jackel Tuazon of qualified trafficking. Tuazon paid an intermediary ₱5,000 to exploit 16-year-old AAA sexually. The Court emphasized that trafficking is consummated upon recruitment or use for exploitation, regardless of the victim’s consent or occurrence of sexual intercourse.
An essential requisite of consolidation is that the actions to be consolidated are pending before the court. A case that was already resolved may no longer be consolidated.
“Evident miscalculation of figures” under Section 25 (a), RA 876 means obvious mathematical errors relating to miscalculation that appear on the face of the award. It does not pertain to any allegation of fraud, corruption, or grave abuse. It is limited to clerical errors and honest mistakes and is, thus, correctible insofar as they do not affect the merits of the controversy.
In Go v. Go and Republic, the Supreme Court upheld the nullification of the marriage of the Spouses Leilani and Hendrick Go under Article 36 of the Family Code. It gave credence to the testimony of both ordinary and expert witnesses in determining the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses.
In Tsutsumi v. Republic, the Supreme Court recognized a Japanese divorce between a Filipino and Japanese citizen. The Court accepted authenticated documents as sufficient proof of divorce and Japanese law, emphasizing procedural flexibility to ensure substantial justice in family matters.
The Supreme Court ruled that pharmacist Joel Tapia was illegally dismissed by GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. Despite GA2’s claim that the former was a mere probationary employee. The Court gave credence to Tapia’s narration of facts leading to his dismissal, and to the documentary evidence he submitted establishing his employment as GA2’s pharmacist since July 2013. Tapia was awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees.
Tapia v. GA2 Pharmaceutical [September 28, 2022] Read More »
In AAA261422 v. XXX261422, the Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari filed by the private complainant assailing the criminal aspect of the case, even without conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). It found that the guideline laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB requiring such conformity does not apply to the present case which was resolved prior to Austria’s finality. The Supreme Court further found that entertaining the abovementioned petition will not put the accused in double jeopardy. It found that the decision of the trial court acquitting the accused was void for lack of jurisdiction, having been rendered in violation of the People’s right to due process. Finally, the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of three counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
In Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused is disqualified from plea bargaining for illegal sale of shabu if the crime involves 1.00 grams or above of the said dangerous drugs. However, failure to raise such disqualification in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, may be deemed a waiver of such disqualification.
