NEWS

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rodrigo, Jr. -vs- Sandiganbayan

CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR., ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO and REYNALDO G. MEJICA, Petitioners, vs THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. No. 125498. February 18, 1999. DECISION : Petitioner mayor’s position having been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with R.A. No. 6758, and having been charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975. By virtue of the same Section 4 a., as amended, his co-accused are also subject to the Anti-Graft Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, a local government official’s actual salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and financial capability of his or her respective local government unit. This circumstance, however, has no bearing on such official’s Grade. As the foregoing discussion ...
Read more

SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO

SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO G.R. No. 185064. January 16, 2012 FACTS: Sometime in September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount of P100,000.00, which was secured by a mortgage over the property, where a house was constructed thereon in 1987, they jointly purchased in 1984 while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage. As payment, Araceli issued a check payable to Claudio. But it was dishonored as the account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment. Thus, on April 26, 1990, Claudio filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the petitioners. In 1992, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting the petitioners but ordering them to pay Claudio the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. In 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the subject property. On M...
Read more

Tribiana vs Tribiana

EDWIN N. TRIBIANA vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA G.R. No. 137359. September 13, 2004 FACTS: Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since 1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997. On 30 April 1998, Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming that Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, (Khriza). Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza who was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Later, it turned out that Khriza was being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana.  Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that the petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before its filing as required by Article 151 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether or not failure to allege compromise proceedings in a petition is a ground for dismissal. HELD: NO. Lourdes has complied with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code. She a...
Read more