recto - pakistan

8/15/2019 Recto - Pakistan

1/46


2/46


3/46


4/46

G.R. No. L-0911 No"3' 2, 1900

ANTON/A L. DE JESUS, ET AL., plaintiff-appellant,vs.ESAR S5U/A, defendant-appellant.

Jose Sotelo for plaintiffsappellants.!icente J. "rancisco for defendantappellant.

STREET, J.:

"his action was instit&ted in the o&rt of First *nstance of anila b# Antonia oanco de +es&s in herown ri$ht and b# her mother, Pilar ar%&ez, as ne:t friend and representative of *smael and Pacitaoanco, infants, children of the first-named plaintiff, for the p&rpose of recoverin$ from thedefendant, esar #%&ia, the s&m of thirt# tho&sand pesos as dama$es res&ltin$ to the first-namedplaintiff from breach of a marria$e promise, to compel the defendant to reco$nize *smael and Pacita

as nat&ral children be$otten b# him with Antonia, and to pa# for the maintenance of the three theamo&nt of five h&ndred pesos per month, to$ether with costs. =pon hearin$ the ca&se, after answerof the defendant, the trial co&rt erred a decree re%&irin$ the defendant to reco$nize *smael oancoas his nat&ral child and to pa# maintenance for him at the rate of fift# pesos per month, with costs,dismissin$ the action in other respects. From this '&d$ment both parties appealed, the plaintiffs fromso m&ch of the decision as denied part of the relief so&$ht b# them, and the defendant from thatfeat&re of the decision which re%&ired him to reco$nize *smael oanco and to pa# for hismaintenance.

At the time with which we are here concerned, the defendant, esar #%&ia was of the a$e oftwent#-three #ears, and an &nmarried scion of the prominent famil# in anila, bein$ possessed of aconsiderable propert# in his own ri$ht. His brother-in-law, icente endoza is the owner of a barber

shop in "ondo, where the defendant was acc&stomed to $o for tonsorial attention. *n the month of+&ne Antonia oanco, a li


5/46

to ret&rn to them soon. "he bab# arrived at the time e:pected, and all necessar# anticipator#preparations were made b# the defendant. "o this he emplo#ed his friend Dr. rescenciano "alaverato attend at the birth, and made arran$ements for the hospitalization of the mother in aint +oseph8sHospital of the it# of anila, where she was cared for d&rin$ confinement.

;hen Antonio was able to leave the hospital, #%&ia too< her, with her mother and the bab#, to a

ho&se at 5o. 771 amarines treet, anila, where the# lived to$ether for abo&t a #ear in re$&larfamil# st#le, all ho&sehold e:penses, incl&din$ $as and electric li$ht, bein$ defra#ed b# #%&ia. *nco&rse of time, however, the defendant8s ardor abated and, when Antonia be$an to show si$ns of asecond pre$nanc# the defendant decamped, and he is now married to another woman. A point thatsho&ld here be noted is that when the time came for christenin$ the child, the defendant, who hadchar$e of the arran$ement for this ceremon#, ca&sed the name *smael oanco to be $iven to him,instead of esar #%&ia, +r., as was at first planned.

"he first %&estion that is presented in the case is whether the note to the padre, %&oted above, inconnection with the letters written b# the defendant to the mother d&rin$ pre$nanc#, proves anac


6/46

the cond&ct of the father himself, and that as a conse%&ence, the defendant in this case sho&ld becompelled to ac


7/46

G.R. No. L-16409 July 2, 1961

ANTON/O GELUZ, petitioner,vs.THE HON. OURT OF APPEALS ($! OSAR LAZO, respondents.

Mariano H. de Joya for petitioner. -.. Salvador for respondents.

RE5ES, J..L., J .

"his petition for certiorari brin$s &p for review %&estion whether the h&sband of a woman, whovol&ntaril# proc&red her abortion, co&ld recover dama$es from ph#sician who ca&sed the same.

"he liti$ation was commenced in the o&rt of First *nstance of anila b# respondent 2scar azo,the of 5ita illan&eva, a$ainst petitioner Antonio Jel&z, a ph#sician. onvinced of the merits of thecomplaint &pon the evidence add&ced, the trial co&rt rendered '&d$ment favor of plaintiff azo anda$ainst defendant Jel&z, orderin$ the latter to pa# P(,000.00 as dama$es, P!00.00 attorne#8s fees

and the costs of the s&it. 2n appeal, o&rt of Appeals, in a special division of five, s&stained theaward b# a ma'orit# vote of three '&stices as a$ainst two, who rendered a separate dissentin$opinion.

"he facts are set forth in the ma'orit# opinion as followsB

5ita illan&eva came to


8/46


9/46

et a cop# of this decision be f&rnished to the Department of +&stice and the 9oard of edicalE:aminers for their information and s&ch investi$ation and action a$ainst the appellee Antonio Jel&zas the facts ma# warrant.


10/46

G.R. No. L-2908 M('+ 20, 199

THE GOERNMENT OF THE PH/L/PP/NE /SLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GEORGE /. FRAN:, defendant-appellant.

/ishop and 0/rien for appellant. -ttorney2eneral 3ilfley for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.B

+&d$ment was rendered in the lower co&rt on the 7th da# of eptember, 107. "he defendantappealed. 2n the 1/th da# of 2ctober, 107, the appellant filed his printed bill of e:ceptions with thecler< of the &preme o&rt. 2n the 7th da# of December, 107, the appellant filed his brief with thecler< of the &preme o&rt. 2n the 1th da# of +an&ar#, 106, the Attorne#-Jeneral filed his brief insaid ca&se. 5othin$ f&rther was done in said ca&se &ntil on or abo&t the (0th da# of +an&ar#, 10,when the respective parties were re%&ested b# this co&rt to prosec&te the appeal &nder the penalt#of havin$ the same dismissed for fail&re so to doI where&pon the appellant, b# petition, had the

ca&sed placed &pon the calendar and the same was heard on the /d da# of Febr&ar#, 10.

"he facts from the record appear to be as followsB

First. "hat on or abo&t the 1!th da# of April, 10(, in the cit# of hica$o, in the state of *llinois, in the=nited tates, the defendant, thro&$h a respective of the *ns&lar Jovernment of the Philippine*slands, entered into a contract for a period of two #ears with the plaintiff, b# which the defendantwas to receive a salar# of 1,/00 dollars per #ear as a steno$rapher in the service of the said plaintiff,and in addition thereto was to be paid in advance the e:penses inc&rred in travelin$ from the saidcit# of hica$o to anila, and one-half salar# d&rin$ said period of travel.

econd. aid contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its terms on the part of the

defendant, he sho&ld become liable to the plaintiff for the amo&nt e:pended b# the Jovernment b#wa# of e:penses inc&rred in travelin$ from hica$o to anila and one-half salar# paid d&rin$ s&chperiod.

"hird. "he defendant entered &pon the performance of his contract &pon the (0th da# of April, 10(,and was paid half-salar# from that date &ntil +&ne 4, 10(, the date of his arrival in the Philippine*slands.

Fo&rth. "hat on the 11th da# of Febr&ar#, 104, the defendant left the service of the plaintiff andref&sed to ma


11/46


12/46

econd. "he plaintiff >defendant? bein$ f&ll# %&alified to enter into the contract at the place and timethe contract was made, he can not plead infanc# as a defense at the place where the contract isbein$ enforced.

;e believe that the above concl&sions also dispose of the second assi$nment of error.

For the reasons above stated, the '&d$ment of the lower co&rt is affirmed, with costs.


13/46


14/46


15/46

C* "he order admittin$ the will to probate was be#ond the '&risdiction of the co&rt and voidbeca&se made witho&t notice to the petitionerI

C** "he '&d$ment from which the petitioner see


16/46


17/46


18/46


19/46

;hat has been said effect&all# disposes of the petition considered in its aspect as an attac< &ponthe order of probate for error apparent on the face of the record. 9&t the petitioner see


20/46

citizen of an American tate comes to reside in the Philippine *slands. Here he cannot ac%&ire a newcitizenshipI nor b# the mere chan$e of domicile does he lose that which he bro&$ht with him.

"he proof add&ced before the trial co&rt m&st therefore be ta


21/46


22/46

G.R. No. L-22898 No"3' 1, 1927

T%&(& E%&(& o* Jo%;+ G. '#"o, JUAN M//ANO, (!"#$#%&'(&o', petitioner-appellee,vs.ANDRE R/MO, opponent-appellant.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

"he partition of the estate left b# the deceased +oseph J. 9rimo is in %&estion in this case.

"he '&dicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. Andre 9rimo, one of the brothersof the deceased, opposed it. "he co&rt, however, approved it.

"he errors which the oppositor-appellant assi$ns areB

C1 "he approval of said scheme of partitionI C/ denial of his participation in the inheritanceI C( thedenial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approvin$ the partitionI C4 the approval of thep&rchase made b# the Pietro ana of the deceased8s b&siness and the deed of transfer of said

b&sinessI and C7 the declaration that the "&r


23/46


24/46


25/46

G.R. No%. 98122-20 M(y 01, 1991

OARD OF OMM/SS/ONERS , petitioners,vs.HON. JOSEL/TO DELA ROSA, P'%#!#$? Ju!?, RT M($#l(, '($+ 29, >/LL/AM T.GATHAL/AN,respondents.

OARD OF OMM/SS/ONERS , petitioners,vs.

HON. TERES/TA D/ZON APULONG, P'%#!#$? Ju!?, RT '($+ 172, (l$@ul(, M&'oM($#l(, DEE HUA T. GATHAL/AN, SHER>/NG T. GATHAL/AN, :ENNETH T. GATHAL/AN,RELON T. GATHAL/AN, ($! >ESL/E T. GATHAL/AN, respondents.

G.R. No%. 98612-10 M(y 01, 1991

>/LL/AM T. GATHAL/AN, petitioner,vs.OARD OF OMM/SS/ONERS


26/46


27/46


28/46


29/46

order, or decision, or '&d$ment of the o&rt of A$rarian elationsI the ecretar# ofabor &nder ection ! of ep&blic Act 5&mbered i: h&ndred and two, also #al with the ?egional8rial 6o#rts, in ter's of ran@ and stat#re, and logically, (eyond the control of the latter .CEmphasis s&pplied

"here are %&asi-'&dicial a$encies, as the 5ational abor elations ommissions, whose decisionsare directl# appealable to this o&rt. *t is onl# when a specific law, as ep&blic Act 5o. 74(4,provides appeal from certain bodies or commissions to the o&rt of Appeals as the ande$istration ommission C, ec&rities and E:chan$e ommission CE and others, that thesaid commissions or boards ma# be considered co-e%&al with the "s in terms of ran


30/46


31/46

prohibition conc&rrentl# with the o&rt of Appeals and the &preme o&rt and in line with theprono&ncements of this o&rt in 6h#a Hiong and 6ocases.

2rdinaril#, the case wo&ld then be remanded to the e$ional "rial o&rt. 9&t not in the case atbar.1Awphi1 onsiderin$ the vol&mino&s pleadin$s s&bmitted b# the parties and the evidence presented,;e deem it proper to decide the controvers# ri$ht at this instance. And this co&rse of action is not

witho&t precedent for @it is a cherished r&le of proced&re for this o&rt to alwa#s strive to settle theentire controvers# in a sin$le proceedin$ leavin$ no root or branch to bear the seeds of f&t&reliti$ation. 5o &sef&l p&rpose will be served if this case is remanded to the trial co&rt onl# to have itsdecision raised a$ain to the o&rt of Appeals and from there to this o&rt@ Car%&ez vs. ar%&ez, !(Phil. !4I Neramic *nd&stries, *nc. vs. J&errero, 61 A /67 >1!4? Al$er Electric, *nc. vs. o&rt of

Appeals C1(7 A (! >1)7?, citing Ja#os vs. Ja#os C6! A 146 >1!7?.

*n :ianga /ay :ogging 6o., 4nc. vs. 6o#rt of -ppeals C17! A (7! >1))?, ;e also statedB

emand of the case to the lower co&rt for f&rther reception of evidence is not necessar#where the co&rt is in a position to resolve the disp&te based on the records before it. 2nman# occasions, the o&rt, in the p&blic interest and the e:peditio&s administration of

'&stice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remandin$ them to the trial co&rt forf&rther proceedin$s, s&ch as where the ends of '&stice wo&ld not be s&bserved b# theremand of the case or when p&blic interest demands an earl# disposition of the case orwhere the trial co&rt had alread# received all the evidence of the parties C&is&mbin$ vs. A,11/ A !0(I Francisco, et al., vs. "he it# of Davao, et al., s#praI ep&blic vs. ec&rit#redit Acceptance orp., et al., 1 A 7)I amal vs. A, s#praI ep&blic vs. entral&ret# *ns&rance o., /7 A 641.

i1))?, ;e saidB

o&nd practice see


32/46

decision ma# be reviewed. "his o&rt did not s%&arel# pass &pon an# %&estion of citizenship, m&chless that of respondent8s who was not a part# in the aforesaid cases. "he said cases ori$inated froma petition for a writ of ha(eas corp#s filed on +&l# /1, 167 b# acario Arocha in behalf of PedroJatchalian. ;ell settled is the r&le that a person not part# to a case cannot be bo&nd b# a decisionrendered therein.

5either can it be ar$&ed that the 9oard of ommissioners8 decision Cdated +&l# 6, 16/ findin$respondent8s claim to Philippine citizenship not satisfactoril# proved, constit&te res #dicata. For onethin$, said decision did not ma1!1?I ia e#es vs. Deportation 9oard, 1// A4!) >1)(?.

*n Moy Ba :i' vs. 6o''issioner of 4''igration C41 A // >1!1? and in :ee vs. 6o''issioner of 4''igration Cs#pra, this o&rt declared thatB

Cever#time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a '&dicial or

administrative case, whatever the correspondin$ co&rt or administrative a&thorit# decidestherein as to s&ch citizenship is $enerall# not considered as res ad#dicata, hence it has tobe threshed o&t a$ain and a$ain as the occasion ma# demand.

An e:ception to the above r&le was laid b# this o&rt in /#rca vs. ?ep#(lic C71 A /4)>1!(?, vi9 B

;e declare it to be a so&nd r&le that where the citizenship of a part# in a case is definitel#resolved b# a co&rt or b# an administrative a$enc#, as a material iss&e in the controvers#,after a f&ll-blown hearin$ with the active participation of the olicitor Jeneral or hisa&thorized representative, and this findin$ or the citizenship of the part# is affirmed b# thiso&rt, the decision on the matter shall constit&te concl&sive proof of s&ch part#8s citizenshipin an# other case or proceedin$. 9&t it is made clear that in no instance will a decision on the%&estion of citizenship in s&ch cases be considered concl&sive or bindin$ in an# other caseor proceedin$, &nless obtained in accordance with the proced&re herein stated.

"h&s, in order that the doctrine of res #dicata ma# be applied in cases of citizenship, the followin$m&st be presentB 1 a person8s citizenship m&st be raised as a material iss&e in a controvers# wheresaid person is a part#I / the olicitor Jeneral or his a&thorized representative too< active part in theresol&tion thereof, and ( the findin$ or citizenship is affirmed b# this o&rt.

Ja&$ed b# the fore$oin$, ;e find the pre-conditions set forth in /#rca ine:istent inthe -rocha and !ivo cases relied &pon b# petitioners. *ndeed, respondent ;illiam Jatchalian wasnot even a part# in said cases.

omin$ now to the contention of petitioners that the arrest of respondent follows as a matter ofconse%&ence based on the warrant of e:cl&sion iss&ed on +&l# 6, 16/, co&pled withthe -rocha and !ivo cases C?ollo, pp. ((, the o&rt finds the same devoid of merit.

ec. (! Ca of ommonwealth Act 5o. 61(, as amended, otherwise


33/46


34/46

2n arch 14, 1!(, the 9oard of pecial *n%&ir#, after $ivin$ d&e co&rse to the motion for re-hearin$, s&bmitted a memorand&m to the then Actin$ ommissioner ictor 5it&da CAnne: @7@,co&nter-petition recommendin$ 1 the reconsideration of the +&l# 6, 16/ decision of the then 9oardof ommissioners which reversed the +&l# 6, 161 decision of the then 9oard of pecial *n%&ir# 5o.1 and / the liftin$ of the warrants of arrest iss&ed a$ainst applicants. "he memorand&m inferred thatthe @ver# basis of the 9oard of ommissioners in reversin$ the decision of the 9oard of pecial

*n%&ir# was d&e to a for$ed cable$ram b# the then ecretar# of Forei$n Affairs, . . ., which wasdispatched to the Philippine ons&late in Hon$ Non$ a&thorizin$ the re$istration of applicants as P.*.citizens.@ "he 9oard of pecial *n%&ir# concl&ded that @Cif at all, the cable$ram onl# led to theiss&ance of their ertificateCs of *dentit# which too< the place of a passport for their a&thorizedtravel to the Philippines. *t bein$ so, even if the applicants co&ld have entered ille$all#, the mere factthat the# are citizens of the Philippines entitles them to remain in the co&ntr#.@

2n arch 17, 1!(, then Actin$ ommissioner 5it&da iss&ed an 2rder CAnne: @6@, co&nter-petitionwhich affirmed the 9oard of pecial *n%&ir# 5o. 1 decision dated +&l# 6, 161 admittin$ respondentJatchalian and others as Filipino citizensI recalled the +&l# 6, 16/ warrant of arrest and revalidatedtheir *dentification ertificates.

"he above order admittin$ respondent as a Filipino citizen is the last official act of the $overnmenton the basis of which respondent ;illiam Jatchalian contin&all# e:ercised the ri$hts of a Filipinocitizen to the present. onse%&entl#, the pres&mption of citizenship lies in favor of respondent;illiam Jatchalian.

"here sho&ld be no %&estion that antia$o Jatchalian, $randfather of ;illiam Jatchalian, is aFilipino citizen. As a matter of fact, in the ver# order of the 92 of +&l# 6, 16/, which reversed the+&l# 6, 161 9* order, it is an accepted fact that antia$o Jatchalian is a Filipino. "he openin$para$raph of said order statesB

"he claim to Filipino citizenship of abovenamed applicants is based on the citizenship of oneantia$o Jatchalian whose Philippine citizenship was reco$nized b# the 9&rea& of*mmi$ration in an 2rder dated +&l# 1/, 160. CAnne: @(!@, omment with o&nter-Petition.

5onetheless, in said order it was fo&nd that the applicants therein have not satisfactoril# proven thatthe# are the children and3or $randchildren of antia$o Jatchalian. "he stat&s of antia$o Jatchalianas a Filipino was reiterated in -rocha and -rca Cs#pra where advertence is made to the @applicantsbein$ the descendants of one antia$o Jatchalian, a Filipino.@ Cat p. 7(.

*n the sworn statement of antia$o Jatchalian before the Philippine ons&l in Hon$


35/46


36/46


37/46


38/46


39/46


40/46


41/46

2n / A&$&st 1)0, ro&$hl# one C1 #ear and fo&r C4 months prior to the e:piration of the contracts of emplo#ment, P*A thro&$h r. 2scar 9enares, co&nsel for and official of the local branch of P*A, sentseparate letters both dated 1 A&$&st 1)0 to private respondents Farrales and amasi$ advisin$both that their services as fli$ht stewardesses wo&ld be terminated @effective 1 eptember 1)0,conformabl# to cla&se 6 Cb of the emplo#ment a$reement >the# had e:ec&ted with >P*A?.@ 2

2n eptember 1)0, private respondents Farrales and amasi$ 'ointl# instit&ted a complaint,doc


42/46


43/46


44/46


45/46

itself has sin$led o&tB a$reements entered into precisel# to circ&mvent sec&rit# often&re. *t sho&ld have no application to instances where a fi:ed period ofemplo#ment was a$reed &pon #ences. Cemphasis s&pplied

*t is apparent from /rent School that the critical consideration is the presence or absence ofa s&bstantial indication that the period specified in an emplo#ment a$reement was desi$nedto circ&mvent the sec&rit# of ten&re of re$&lar emplo#ees which is provided for in Articles /)0and /)1 of the abor ode. "his indication m&st ordinaril# rest &pon some aspect of thea$reement other than the mere specification of a fi:ed term of the ernplo#ment a$reement,or &pon evidence ali#nde of the intent to evade.

E:aminin$ the provisions of para$raphs 7 and 6 of the emplo#ment a$reement between petitionerP*A and private respondents, we consider that those provisions m&st be read to$ether and when soread, the fi:ed period of three C( #ears specified in para$raph 7 will be seen to have been effectivel#ne&tralized b# the provisions of para$raph 6 of that a$reement. Para$raph 6 in effect too< bac< fromthe emplo#ee the fi:ed three C(-#ear period ostensibl# $ranted b# para$raph 7 b# renderin$ s&chperiod in effect a fac&ltative one at the option of the emplo#er P*A. For petitioner P*A claims to bea&thorized to shorten that term, at an# time and for an# ca&se satisfactor# to itself, to a one-monthperiod, or even less b# simpl# pa#in$ the emplo#ee a month8s salar#. 9eca&se the net effect ofpara$raphs 7 and 6 of the a$reement here involved is to render the emplo#ment of privaterespondents Farrales and amasi$ basicall# emplo#ment at the pleas&re of petitioner P*A, the o&rtconsiders that para$raphs 7 and 6 were intended to prevent an# sec&rit# of ten&re from accr&in$ in

favor of private respondents even d#ring the li'ited period of three C%L years, 10 and th&s to escape

completel# the thr&st of Articles /)0 and /)1 of the abor ode.

Petitioner P*A cannot ta


46/46

recto - pakistan

Documents