Monday, February 27, 2012

Relief Denied due to Negligence

A party to a case cannot blame their counsel for negligence when they themselves are guilty of neglect. Relief cannot be granted to parties who seek to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy is due to their own negligence. Equity serves the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Just Compensation Award v. Excavated Soil

The Supreme Court has excluded the value of excavated soil from the payment for just compensation to the owners of expropriated properties. The Court held that there is no legal basis to separate the value of the excavated soil from that of the expropriated properties as the soil has no value separate from that of the expropriated land (Republic of the Philippines v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., G.R. No. 185124. January 25, 2012).

DARAB Jurisdiction vis-a-vis Property not under CARP

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has been created and designed to exercise the DAR's adjudicating functions. A quasi-judicial body, DARAB derives its jurisdiction from law, specifically RA6657, which invested it with adjudicatory powers over agrarian reform disputes. Hence, properties outside of CARP is also beyond DARAB's jurisdiction.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Respect the Independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law

The Members of the Court cannot be compelled to testify in the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice or other Members of the Court about information they acquired in the performance of their official function of adjudication, such as information on how deliberations were conducted or the material inputs that the Justices used in decision-making, because the end result would be the disclosure of confidential information that could subject them to criminal prosecution. Such act violates judicial privilege (or the equivalent of executive privilege) as it pertains to the exercise of the constitutional mandate of adjudication. Jurisprudence implies that justices and judges cannot be subject to any compulsory process in relation to the performance of their adjudicatory functions. Inter-departmental courtesy demands that the highest levels of each department be exempt from compulsory processes of other departments on matters related to the functions and duties of their office.
The improper disclosure of confidential information is made criminally punishable under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and, Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Court records which are "pre-decisional" and "deliberative" in nature are thus protected and cannot be the subject of a subpoena if judicial privilege is to be preserve. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel in fact provides that access shall be denied with respect to information or records relating to drafts of decision, rulings, orders, or internal memoranda or internal reports.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Constructive Dismissal

There is constructive dismissal when an employee quits his work because of the agency head's unreasonable, humiliating, or demeaning actuation which render continued work impossible. This may occur although there is no diminution or reduction of the salary of the employee. It may be a transfer from one position of dignity to a more servile or menial job. While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or when it is designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the civil service.
When a government official or employee in the classified civil service had been illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement had later been ordered, for all legal purposes he is considered as not having left the office, so that he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office that he held (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Civil Service Commission v. Minerva M.P. Pacheco, G.R. No. 178021, January 25, 2012).

Damages

Moral Damages are given to ease the defendant's grief and suffering and should be reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done;
Exemplary Damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.