Oxales v. UNILAB

GR 152991

July 21, 2008

Facts: Alberto Oxales was compulsory retired by UNILAB and he received his share in Trust Fund A, Trust Fund B and unused sick leaves and under United Retirement Plan (URP). He claimed that total computed retirement pay was lacking P1,775,907.23. UNILAB countered that provision of the URP excludes commissions, overtime, bonuses, or extra compensations in the computation of basic salary of the retiring employee.

            Issues:

1.    W/N in the computation of his retirement and sick leaves benefits, UNILAB should have factored such benefits like bonuses, cash and meal allowances, rice rations, service incentive leaves, and ½ of the 13^th month pay

2.    W/N RA 7641 is applicable for purposes of computing retirement benefits

3.    W/N UNILAB is liable for moral damages, exemplary damages, and atty’s fees

Held:   1. The clear language of the URP should be respected. The law respects the freedom to contract but, at the same time, it is very zealous in protecting the contracting parties and the public in general. So much so that the contracting parties need not incorporate existing laws in their contract. §quando abest, proviso parties, adest proviso legis (when the provision of the party islacking, provision of the law supplies it)

            Oxales is not entitled to the additional retirement benefits he is asking because URP is very clear. URP is not contrary to law, morals, public policy, public order thus it must be sustained. §inclusio unius est exclusion alterius (inclusion of one is the exclusion of others)

2. RA 7641 does not apply in view of the URP which gives retiring employee more than what the law requires. The Retirement Pay Law (RA 7641) only applies in the situation where (1) there is no collective bargaining agreement/ other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits or (2) there is such agreement but is below requirements set by law because private contracts cannot derogate from public law (§pacta privata juri public derogare non possunt).

            Legislative intent (RA 7641) because many employers refuse/ neglect to adopt a retirement plan for their employees due to the absence of any legal compulsion

            URP grants more than what the law gives. Oxales is trying to have the best of both worlds thus a sign of covetousness.

3. Oxales is not entitled to the awards. He claimed that the revocation of his medical benefits caused him humiliation and anxiety. Medical benefits are not included in the URP.

After he retired, he joined rival company which gives more reason to discontinue benefits

DOCTRINE

            Management also has its own rights. Justice should be dispensed in light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. RA 7641 applies only when there’s no agreement/ if there is, is below requirements set by law.

Tirazona v. CA

GR 169712

March 14, 2008

Facts: 

            Wenelita Tirazona, an administrative manager of PET (PH Eds-Techno Service Inc) was accused of humiliating Fe Balonzo, a rank-and-file employee, while she was reporting back to work after recuperating from tuberculosis, insinuated that in a manner loud enough that the latter still had the disease. Tirazona explained that her only intention was to orient Balonzo of her rights as a sick employee, that under the law, if the latter planned to resign, company can give her separation pay. Series of hearings occurred.

            She was terminated for serious misconduct and breach of trust because of her demand against the company and her invasion of PET’s right to privileged communication.

            Issues: 1. W/N there was breach of trust on Tirazona when she wrote the 2Million demand letter for damages warranting her dismissal

2. W/N due process was sufficiently and faithfully observed by respondents in the dismissal of petitioner from employment *W/N she was legally dismissed

Held:

          She was legally terminated. PET had enough reasons to distrust her due to her arrogance and hostility she has shown towards the company and her stubborn and uncompromising stance justifies termination. She was not denied due process because she was afforded notices and enough opportunity to defend herself but she did not exhaust such for she failed to attend scheduled hearings and yet PET still informed her what happened therein and even gave her chance to submit supplemental written explanation. Her letter contained false accusations and she demanded 2M pesos with a threat of lawsuit. Also reading a confidential letter, even if it concerns her, furthers the view that she cannot be trusted.

DOCTRINE:

            Managerial EE v Managerial EE

            An attack on [Mamoru Ono, Director of PET] PET’s corporate act is necessarily aimed at respondent PET because a corporation can only act through its officers, agents, and representatives.

Peregrina Avenido v. Tecla Avenido

GR 173540      

January 22, 2014

Facts:              

This case is about two women both claiming to have been validly married to the same man, now deceased.

Tecla claimed to have been married to Eutaquio Avenido (deceased) on September 30, 1942. However, due to World War II, Marriage certificate and other records were destroyed and only a Certfication was issued by the LCR. They begot 4 children. Sometime in 1954, he left the family and his whereabouts were not known. She later found out that he was living with another woman Buenaventura Sayson who later died on 1977. 1979, she later found out that he was married to Peregrina on March 30, 1979 wherein she subsequently filed a declaration for nullification to protect successional rights of her children. Peregrina counterclaims that she was the legal surviving spouse and also fights to be an heir of the deceased Eustaquio. Tecla presented several testimonies and certificates.

            Issue: W/N evidence presented proves existence of the marriage of Tecla & Eustaquio.

Held:

            Yes, their marriage subsists. Court upheld CA decision on presumption of marriage as Tecla and Eustaquio deported themselves as husband and wife and begot 4 children. Marriage certificate may be regarded as the primary evidence of a marital union but such is not the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. In this case, due execution was established by the testimonies of Adela Pipapil, who was present during the marriage ceremony and Tecla herself who was a party to the event. The subsequent loss was shown by the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest as relevant, competent and admissible evidence. Since due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by the evidence presented, secondary evidence—testimonial and documentary—may be admitted to prove the fact of marriage (Lim Tanhu v Ramolete). Court finds Certfications of Loss/Destruction of record of marriage issued by NSO and LCR as relevant, competent, and admissible evidence (Pugeda v. Trias). Presumption of marriage stands. Peregrina’s marriage is void.

Virginia Calimag v. Macapaz Heirs

GR 191936     

June 1, 2016

Facts:

Virginia co-owned a property with Silvestra under Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No.183088 and under such title is an annotation of an Adverse Claim of Fidela asserting rights and interests over a portion of the said property. Anastacio Jr. and Alicia both surnamed Macapaz are children of Silvestra’s brother, Anastacio Sr. and Fidela Vda de Macapaz. Anastacio Jr. filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for 2 counts of falsification of documents but was dismissed. On 2006, respondents, asserting that they are the heirs of Silvestra, instituted the action for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Cancellation of TCT 221466 with damages. Petitioner countered that respondents have no legal capacity to institute said civil action because they are illegitimate children of Anastacio Sr and Art. 992 of the Civil Code prohibits illegitimate children from inheriting intestate.

Issue: W/N respondents are legal heirs of Silvestra. 

Held:

            Court favors respondents. Petition is bereft of merit. Court finds that the respondents’ certificate of live births were duly executed with the provision of the law respecting the registration of birth of illegitimate child. The fact that only the signature of Fidela appear on said documents is of no moment because Fidela only signed as the declarant or informant of the respondents’ fact of birth as legitimate children. Also, Anastacio Sr. and Fidela had openly cohabited as husband and wife (Trinidad v CA) for a number of years as a result of which they had 2 children (respondents). Art 220 of the Civil Code is the governing provision herein which states that “in case of doubt, all presumptions favor solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of the children, the community property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of the defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression.”

Cercado-Siga v. Cercado Jr.

GR 185374      

March 11, 2015

Facts:

            Petitioners are children of Vicente and Benita. Vicente acquired by gratuitous tile a parcel of land. Upon his death and by virtue of intestate succession, ownership over said land pertained to them as heirs and also upon death of Benita, her share was passed on to them by operation of law. Sometime in 1998, petitioners read in a newspaper a notice that the estate of Vicente and Leonora Ditablan has been extra-judicially settled by their heirs, respondents herein. To prove marriage of petitioners’ parents, they presented several documents.

Issue: W/N marriage contract, or Contrato Matrimonial, as denominated in this case, is sufficient to prove fact of marriage.

Held:

            Petitioners failed to prove validity of marriage, hence, they do not have cause of action in the case for the declaration of nullity of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Vicente and Leonora. They failed to present witness to establish Rule 132, Sec 20 Rules on Evidence that for a private document (Contrato Matrimonio) to be admissible as evidence. Also, Sec 21 thereof providing for a ‘proper custody’ requisite to the ancient document claimed for it also to be admissible was not met, Contrato Matrimonio is inadmissible as evidence. Marriage is void

Fidel Sps. v. Espneli heirs

GR 168263      

July 21, 2008

Facts:

            Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Tax Declaration, Reconveyance with damages was first filed by respondents. They claim that they are compulsory heirs of Primitivo Espineli, the only son of Vicente with his first wife. They learned that the parcel of land owned by the late Vicente was sold despite the fact that the latter died intestate and that such sale was void for Vicente’s signature therein were forged. Guadalupe, only surviving child of Vicente with his second wife, denies knowledge of such sale but she later admitted to have sold such property. She argues that heirs of Primitivo must first establish their filiation with Vicente before instituting the annulment of sale.

Issues: W/N respondents have legal personality to file complaint for annulment of title

            W/N baptismal cert of Primitivo is valid and competent evidence to prove filiation by

Vicente           

W/N petitioners are buyers in good faith

W/N award for damages is proper

Held:

            Court favors respondents. Baptismal Certificate of Primitivo is valid and competent to prove filiation by Vicente, hence respondents have legal personality. Petitioners were not buyers in good faith for reason that they did not have a Torrens title. Also, court finds that Vicente’s signature was forged, hence, first deed of sale is void. Moral and exemplary damages, and atty’s fees are deleted.

Sps. Salgado v. Luis Anson

GR 204494     

Facts:

            Luis Anson is the husband of Severina de Asis-Anson. They had 1 daughter, Maria Luisa and she was wed to Gaston Maya. Severina had an older daughter to a previous relationship, Jo ann Diaz and she was also wed to Gerard Salgado. Luis and Severina acquired several real properties and according to him, since there was no marriage settlement, the properties pertain to their conjugal partnership. But without his knowledge and consent, Severina executed 3 Unilateral Deeds of Sale transferring then properties in favor of Jo ann. When Severina died, Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judcial Settlement of Estate Deceased Severina adjudicating herself as the sole heir. Due to these acts, Luis filed a complaint for the annulment of these Deeds against Sps Salgado and Sps Maya. The latter countered that they were not aware of any marriage between Luis and their mother Severina but they knew they cohabited as common-law couple and that after their cohabitation, Luis went to the US and married one Teresita. And due to Partition Agreement that divided their properties without court intervention, both Sps claim that the properties herewith are separate and exclusive properties of Severina.  

            Issue: W/N marriage between Severina and Luis is valid and the subject lands as conjugal partnership

Held:

            Court finds that their marriage is void ab initio for lack of marriage license. Luis asserted that their marriage was an exceptional one but he failed to justify the lack of marriage license. He admitted that they did not seek to apply for it. The Partition agreement is valid. Valdez v RTC Quezon City held that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Art 147 or Art 148 as the case may be, of the Family Code. Also, attesting that his marriage with Severina was subsisting and valid, he knowingly contracted to a subsequent marriage abroad, and the Court finds such suspicious and fraudulent thereby tainting his credibility.