Pinoy Mobile Case Digests

 [ A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021 ] HERNANDO, J.: Disposition:      WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel. FACTS Respondent Atty. Centro was complainant Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr.'s (Portuguese) counsel in Civil Case No. 717 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Surigao City. Atty. Centro drafted and filed the Answer to the Complaint. Portuguese alleged that at the termination of the proceedings, the parties were required to file their memoranda. After several follow-ups, respondent informed Portuguese that the memorandum was already fil

[ G.R. No. 228236, January 27, 2021 ]  LOPEZ, M., J.: Disposition:    T he petition is DENIED . FACTS On October 9, 2012, the CSC issued a Decision granting the appeal of Panga-Vega. It ruled that she only needed to present a medical certificate attesting her physical fitness to return to work and need not exhaust the full leave she applied for under RA No. 9710. It was further held that applying the rules on maternity leave, she is entitled to both the commuted money value of the unexpired portion of the special leave and her salary for actual services rendered effective the day she reported back for work. On November 23, 2012, the HRET sought reconsideration, but the CSC denied this in its Resolution dated February 12, 2013. On March 19, 2013, the HRET filed a Petition for Review assailing the foregoing Decision and Resolution of the CSC with the CA. On April 29, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition. Adopting the CSC's findings, it ruled Panga-Vega may opt not to consume the full

 [ G.R. No. 235480, January 27, 2021 ] INTING, J.: Disposition:    The petition is DISMISSED . FACTS After the preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioners for two (2) counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, and two (2) counts of Malversation under the RPC. The Ombudsman indicted the petitioners of facilitating with "undue haste" the processing of the Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and Notice of Cash Allocations (NCAs) pertaining to Cagas' PDAF allocation. Petitioners, however, filed a Joint Omnibus Motion: (1) Motion for Outright Dismissal for Clear Lack of Probable Cause; (2) Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest; and (3) Motion for Bill of Particulars, dated April 3, 2017. On September 18, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution denying, among others, herein petitioners' Joint Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. It maintained its earlier assessment that all the a

 [ A.M. No. 07-4-188-RTC, January 27, 2021 ] INTING, J.: Disposition:    T he instant administrative case against the late Judge Nino A. Batingana is DISMISSED . Accordingly, his retirement benefits are ordered to be RELEASED to the heirs of the late Judge Nino A. Batingana. FACTS Judge Batingana subsequently sought more extensions of time to decide the criminal cases through a series of letters. Without complying with the Resolution dated February 27, 2008, Judge Batingana yet again wrote a few more letters respectively dated March 3, 2008, May 30, 2008, and August 20, 2008, each requesting for additional time to resolve the criminal cases. In a Resolution dated July 16, 2012, the Court reiterated for the last time the Resolution dated February 27, 2008 arid required Judge Batingana to comply therewith. The Court further denied his requests for extensions of time, as contained in his May 30, 2008 and August 20, 2008 letters. On October 3, 2018., Judge Batingana passed away. ISSUE Whet

 [ G.R. No. 218115, January 27, 2021 ] [G.R. No. 218170, January 27, 2021] LOPEZ, M., J.: Disposition:      FOR THESE REASONS, the petition in G.R. No. 218115 is GRANTED . The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 11, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 134114 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE with respect to the awards of sickness allowance and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated August 28, 2013 dismissing the complaint is REINSTATED. FACTS In 2012, Darwin Dalisay (Darwin) applied for shipboard employment with PAL Maritime Corporation (PAL Maritime), which directed him to undergo a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) in its accredited clinic. During his examination, Darwin declared that he had no history of any ailment other than a "Varicocoelectomy" operation in 2003. Thus, Darwin was declared fit to work and hired as an able seaman on behalf of PAL Maritime's foreign principal Norwest Management Corporation (PTE) LTD. Singapore (Norwest Management). O

 [ G.R. No. 193305, January 27, 2021 ] PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Disposition:     T he petition is  DENIED . The Amended Decision dated January 8, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 3, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 82888 approving respondent Banal na Pag-aaral, Phil., Inc.'s application for original registration of the subject lot are hereby affirmed. FACTS: Respondent filed an Amended Application for Registration of Lot Nos. 2304 and 2312, Cad. 482-D Amadeo Cadastre (consolidated as Lot No. 9404) with an area of 57,989 square meters (sq. m.) situated in Barangay Dagatan, Amadeo, Cavite (subject lot) with the RTC, docketed as LRC Case No. TG-898. Respondent claimed ownership and actual possession of the subject lot on the ground of its continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation in the concept of an owner long before World War II, reckoned from the possession of its predecessors-in-interest, the Heirs of Hermogenes Bayot (vendors), who executed a

Summary: A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court. FACTS: Through this Petition, petitioners ask that law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo), be cited in contempt of court under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of the court in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.   Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply to the Opposition stating that the firm opted to retain Revilla's name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred, with the retention serving as an act of charity. Judge Calo overruled the opposition to the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty. Young could still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm an