Gizale O. Tumbaga vs Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon, A.C No.

5573, Nobyembre 21, 2017

J. Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro/ En Banc

Facts:

1. Atty. Teoxon was the Naga City Legal Officer with whom Tumbaga consulated for a flew times, and
even give gifts for the latter’s son.
2. Their relationship blossomed unti Tumbaga moved in with Teoxon who claimed that his previous
marriage bears no effect. When they became pregnant, Teoxon wanted abortion.
3. After giving birth, Tumbaga went to work with a Law firm to make ends meet after Teoxon rarely
visited them. Teoxon however asked her to resign and promised support.
4. The promise did not come into fruition so Tumbaga was forced to seek asssitance with the Naga Fis-
cal Office. This prompted Teoxon to execute an affidavit of support signed hall-heartedly.
5. These promises were again not fulfilled prompting Tumbaga to raid Teoxon’s residence tong ether
with SWAT members. This raid created commotion.
6. When formal complaints were raised, Teoxon denied all the allegation and claimed that the signatures
presented in the documentary evidence are not his.
7. IBP concluded that there was an illicit affair between parties and recommended Teoxon for two years
suspension.

Issues related: Whether or not Atty. Teoxon can also be charged against RA 9262 or the Anti-violence
Against Women and Children

Ruling:
1. The Court finds Atty. Teoxon liable for having illicit affair.
2. Atty. Teoxon was not able to sufficiently established that the second Child of Tumbaga is not his.
3. Adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family or maintaining illicit relationships
with at least two women during his marriage, is an illicit affair warrants ng disciplinary action.
4. Atty. Teoxon is suspended from the practice of law for there years.
Norma A. Del Socorro, for and in bahala of her minor child Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem vs Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, G.R., 193707, December 10, 2014

J. Peralta/ Third Division

Facts:

1. Del Socorro and Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland in 1990 which brought Roderigo Norjo
Van Wilsem to them.
2. The marriage of Del Socorro and Van Wilsem was ended by a divorce decree of a Holland Court. The
latter promised support to their son as a result of the divorce.
3. When Del Socorro and her son went back to the Philippines, no support was extended by her ex-hus-
band which prompted a demand through her legal counsel. The letter was refused by Val Wilsem.
4. Del Socorro escalated this via complaint filed before the Cebu Provincial Prosecutors against Van
Wilsem for violating RA 9262. The court junked the case and motion filed thereafter as respondent
Van Wilsem is not covered by our national law.

Issue: Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under RA 9262 for his unjustified
failure to support his minor Child.

Ruling:

1. Respondent may be liable under Section 5(e) and (i) of R.A. 9262 for unjustly refusing their Child of
support.
2. In international law, the burden to dispute a foreign law to be applied in territorial case rest with the
same foreign law applied. While according to Van Wilsem, the Netherlands laws do not oblige him to
support his son, he never proved the same.
3. Per the doctrine of processual presumption, respondent’s failure to prove that the Netherlands law is
in his favor, our courts will presumed that the foreign law is same as our local law.
4. Thus, it is presumed that obligations of parents to support their children and penalizing non-compli-
ance therewith.
Steven R. Pavlow vs Cherry L. Mendenilla, G.R. No. 181489, April 19, 2017

J. Leonen/ Second Division

Facts:

1. Pavlow, an American citizen, and Mendenilla, a Filipino, got married through a civil rites in Quezon
City and cohabitated after.
2. Three months into the marriage, Mendenilla filed a complaint against her husband for slight physical
injury citing RA 9262. This was turned down by Makati City Prosecutor due to lack of substantiation.
3. Mendenilla pursued the case before the Quezon RTC which issued a TPO in her favor. Pavlow was
out of the country when the same order was issued and ready to be served.
4. Pavlow prayed for the dismissal of the petition as the summons was not properly addressed to him.

Issues: Whether summons was properly served to Pavlow and has jurisdiction over his person.

Ruling:

1. Pavlow, although an American citizen, is a resident of the Philippines when the attempt to serve the
summons was made, thus compelled the Sheriff to deliver the summons through his employee.
2. Substituted service may be resorted to in lieu of personal services if for justifiable causes, the defen-
dant cannot be served with it within a reasonable time.
3. Availability of extraterritorial services does not preclude substituted services.
4. Residents who temporarily leave their residence are responsible to ensure that their affairs are in or-
der.
5. No reason for the Court to find the substituted summons defective. It was delivered to another person
due to exigency of the circumstances with which Mendenilla is suffering.
Ralph P. Tua vs Hon. Cesar A. Mangrobang, Presiding Judge, Branch 22, Regional TRial Court,
Imus, Cavite, and Rossana Honarado-Tua G.R. No. 170701, January 22, 2014

J. Peralta/ Third Division

Facts:

1. Ralph and Rossana Tua were married in Makati City and was blessed with three children.
2. When Rosanna asked for legal separation, Ralph would go to her room and point his gun to his head
convincing her not to push through with it. This left her scared and fearful, and even affected their
children.
3. Rosanna then asked Ralph to stop going to her house at it makes all them uneasy and unsafe. This
prompted Ralph to threaten her to withhold financial support, and even physically abused her after.
4. Her children were forcibly taken from her house when she was at work and refused to give them back
to her.
5. All these led to the filing of case against Ralph for violating RA 9262

Issues:
1. Whether or not Section 15 of RA 9262 is unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not delegation of legislative power to the court and barangay is invalid.

Ruling:

1. The Court is authorized to issue a TPO on the date of the filing of the application after ex parte deter-
mination that there is a basis for the issuance of it. This means, respondents need not be notified or
present in the hearing for the TPO issuance. It is within the court’s discretion to determine that the vi-
olence made to women and children have been committed that rightfully warrants a TPO.
2. The reason why the Court can issue an ex-parte TPO is because time is of the essence to VAWC
cases since life, limb and property of the victim is at stake.
3. TPO ex parte is like the writ of preliminary injections thereby not violative of the right to due
process.
4. The primary judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and reasonableness of any law is function pri-
marily to the legislature. This means, Section 2 of RA 9262 is not unconstitutional.
5. The provision in RA 9262 allowing the issuance of protection orders is a valid legislative power
vested to the court and to barangay officials.,
People of the Philippines vs Melchior Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167993, September 19, 2006

J. Tinga/En Banc

Facts:

1. This is a case where a mother of a child allegedly molested by her own father sent a letter to the Chief
Justice expressing her anxiety over the full text court decision posted in the Supreme Court website.
She asserted that confidentiality and best interest of the child must be paramount to public access to
information. She asked the the said decision be excluded from the Court website.
2. The Court sought the opinions of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), National Press Club (NPC), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), Kapisanan ng mga
Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and the Department of Social Welfare Andre Development (DSWD).
3. The OSG opined that full text decisions involving child abuse on the Court website violates the right
to privacy of the aggrieved parties. The constitutionally-protected zone of privacy can be invoked on
a two-part test; (a) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
and (b) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
4. It is also the position of the OSG that even if the trial was made public, it does not preclude privacy
which the child can invoke.
5. According to DSWD, undue disclosure of information may impair the treatment and rehabilitation of
the child-victim.

Issue: Whether or not it is proper to post the full text of decisions of similar cases on the Supreme Court
Web Page in cases involving child sexual abuse.

Ruling:
1. The case presents an opportunity for the Court to scrutinize RA 7610 of the Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse and Discrimination Act, and RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
2. Provisions on confidentiality uniformly seek to respect the dignity and protect the privacy of the
women and their children.
3. In RA 7610, confidentiality can be obtained by withholding the name of the offended party from the
public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case. Similarly, in RA 9262, confidentiality in
proceedings can be observed in a manner consistent with the dignity of women and their children and
respect for their privacy.
4. Records of the cases shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and can be punishable by penalty and
imprisonment.
5. The Court shall withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and shall use fictitious initials instead
to represent her/him. This covers the personal circumstances of the victim-survivors or any other in-
formation tending to establish or compromise their identities.
People of the Philippines vs Shirley A. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 3, 2014

J. Leonen/En Banc

Facts:
1. Policemen in Cebu City were coordinated with by the International Justice Mission, a non govern-
mental organization in order to trap persons engaged in human trafficking. They served as decoys,
pretending to be tour guides looking for girl to entertain their guests.
2. The team went to a motel and rented two adjacent rooms. Two of the policemen went to the red light
district and after few minutes, the accused returned with 2 women, the private complainants.
3. The two policemen then convinced the accused to meet them at their motel. This is where the marked
money were handed over, and upon receipt signaled the rest of the policemen to arrest the accused.
4. The two private complainants, who knew the accused was a primp, were placed under the DSWD
custody.
5. Accused, Shirley Casio was charged for the violation of RA 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons
Act of 2003.

Issue: Whether or not Casio is liable for human trafficking.

Ruling:

1. Trafficking in persons per RA 9208 can be committed even if the victim gives consent.
2. Accused performed all the elements in commission of the offense against RA 9208 and was qualified
since the trafficked persons were minors.
3. Mere solicitation for sex and handing over the bust money already consummated the act violating the
RA 9208.
4. Minors should spend their adolescence nurturing themselves free from vile motives and the worst of
other human beings.
5. Victims should be rescued and show to them that there is still much good in the world.
People of the Philippines vs Beverly Villanueva y Manalili @ Bebang , G. R. No. 210798, September
14, 2016

J. Perez/ Third Division

Facts:

1. The case stemmed from a girl who found that she was adopted and after being scolded by her mother,
ran away from their home.
2. To regain custody over her daughter, private complainant sought the assistance of media and the
Taguig City Polcie against a videoke bar.
3. During the raid, the police together with a accused-appellant and five other employees were reported
to be working without the necessary city and health permits.
4. RTC found the denial of the accused-appellant unavailing and incredible after corroborating testi-
monies from the witnesses. CA affirmed the conviction.

Issue: Whether the circumstantial pieces of evidence can reasonably conclude the crime of qualified traf-
ficking.

Ruling:

1. Being the registered owner per se of the videoke does not make one criminally liable for the acts of
trafficking committed in the establishment per the elements of trafficking in persons.
2. The prosecution failed to establish the third element of trafficking - that the recruiting, maintaining or
harboring of persons is for the purpose of exploitatition. The Prosecution only saw the daughter of the
complainant during the rescue operation.
3. Circumstantial evidence points to the acquittal of the accused and does not lead to the guilt of the ac-
cused-appellant.
4. Appeal if granted as evidence were not conclusively pointing to the possible guilt of the accused.
People of the Philippines vs Gloria Nangcas, G.R. No. 218806, June 13, 2018

J. Matrices/ Third Division

Facts:

1. Gloria Nangcas recruited four women, three of them are minors, promising them of a local employ-
ment as househelps in Camelot Homes, Cagayan De Oro City with a salary of PHP 1,500.00. They
agreed that they can go home on Sundays.
2. The promised employment in CDO did not happen as the four were transported in Marawi City and
were sold at PHP 1,600 each against their wills.
3. Nangcas denied the allegation of human trafficking as she had no idea, according to her, that the em-
ployer would no longer be needing house helpers.

Issue: Whether or not Nangcas is guilty of human trafficking.

Ruling:

1. Nangcas is found violative of sections 4 and 6 of RA 9208. It is unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to commit any of the following acts: “To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or re-
ceive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic of overseas employ-
ment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.”
2. Qualified trafficking in persons are those when a child is involved.
3. Nangcas induced and coaxed the victims by her promise to them and their parents with an enticement
of PHP 1,500.00 per month.
4. In Marawi, the victims were told that their salary were already been given to Nangcas.
5. Deceit to promote human trafficking is illegal.
Yolanda Floralde, Nica Velasco and Normelita Alhambra vs Court of Appeals, Civil Service Com-
mission and Paulino W. Resma, G.R. No. 123048, August 2000

J. Pardo/En Banc

Facts:

1. Three complaints were filed by ATI employees to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against
Paulino Resma due to sexual harassment.
2. At a formal hearing before the CSC, petitioners narrated the circumstances with which the sexual ha-
rassment took place. This was countered by five witnesses, including the respondent. They testified
that the sexual harassment could not have occurred.
3. CSC meted out the penalty of dismissal from service plus accessory penalties.
4. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC ruling.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in the reversal of the promulgated CSC resolution on the ground that
the same were not supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling:
1. The petitioners were all rank and file reporting to Resma who also signs their time records. This puts
the latter in a superior power that can produce amorous advances.
2. Testimonies from the petitioners are substantive evidence to support the case and his reason of not be-
ing in the office during those days was just a mere alibi.
3. Respondent also cited that this is just a politically motivated by her rival to a promotion. This is pure
fabrication.
4. the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the resolutions of CSC. Finding of an administrative body
must be respected as their findings support substantial evidence even if these might not overwhelming
or preponderant.
Philippine Aeolus Auto-motive United Corporation and/or Francis Chua vs National Labor Rela-
tions Commission and Rosalinda C. Cortez, G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000

J. Bellosillo/Second Division

Facts:

1. Petitioner is a corporation organized under the Philippine laws where Francis Chua is its president
and Rosalinda Cortez was a company nurse in the same corporation.
2. Cortez was made to explain the incident with her supervisor and for the other incidents within the
work place where she was involved.
3. Cortez did not read the memorandum issued to her and she didn’t reply to it. This placed her under
preventive suspension for 30 days.
4. While on preventive suspension, another memorandum was issued to her for failing to do what she
was asked for work.
5. Then came the termination memorandum which Cortez filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal, non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and damages.
The Labor Arbiter decided against her.
6. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter ruling and ordered Cortez to be reinstated.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of the re-
spondent.
2. Whether or not respondent Cortez is entitled to damages in the event the illegality of her dismissal is
sustained.

Ruling:
1. Serious misconduct warranting dismissal of employees to be a just cause should be (2) serious, (b) re-
lated to the performance of the employee’s duties, and , (c) showed that the employee has become un-
fit to continue working for the employer.
2. Negligence, to warrant dismissal, should not merely be gross but habitual.
3. The sexual harassment offense even brought up four years after still constitutes abuse of power by the
employer. There is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain.
4. Penalty for dismissal is too excessive and not proportionate to the alleged infractions committed.
5. Dismissal was without cause and the petitioners should pay her wages back computed from the time
of her dismissal which should be full back wages.
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo vs Rogelio I. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008

J. Nachura/ Third Division

Facts:

1. Domingo, then stenographic reporter at the NLRC, filed a complaint for sexual harassment against
Rayala before DOLE Secretary Laguesma. This was supported by an affidavit narrating the inci-
dences that transpired.
2. Domingo asked for leave of absence and asked to Bree immediately transferred after filing an admin-
istrative complaint against Rayala.
3. Secretary Laguesma referred the matter to the Office of the President, Rayala being a presidential ap-
pointee. The OP ordered Laguesma to conduct full blown investigation.
4. The committee created to investigate found Rayala to be guilty of the charges and imposed upon him
a suspension of 6 months.
5. The order was appealed to the CA which initially granted dismissal then adopted suspension from
service for one year.

Issue: Whether or not Rayala should be dismissed from public service for violating RA 7877.

Ruling:

1. As a Presidential appointee, the president has prerogative to dismiss Rayala from service.
2. Rayala’ s security of tenure is conditioned upon his good behavior. He may be removed from office if
he failed to live up to the standard his office warrants.
3. Findings of the NLRC Committee, the OP and the CA is conclusive since the charge was an adminis-
trative one and not a criminal.
4. It is enough that Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo.
5. Rayala is found guilty and dismissed from public service.
Civil Service Commission vs Peter E. Nierras, G.R. No. 165121, February 2008

J. Quisumbing/En Banc

Facts:

1. Olga Ona is a secretary of the Local Water Utilities Administration and Peter Nierras is the acting
general manager of the Metro Carigara Water District, Leyte.
2. Ona, upon orders from her manager, left for Leyte to assist in a formation of a water district. She was
endorsed to Nierras.
3. After the local briefing, Nierras assisted Ona in a meeting with the municipal Mayor where both took
a motorcycle. This is when Ona felt the discomfort.
4. They both stayed in Nierras’ farm where Ona alleged that Nierras has tried to rape her. Nierras denied
the incident.
5. Ona filed an incident report at LWUA charging Nierras with sexual harassment and implicated her
immediate supervisors. She then proceeded to CSC to file charges.
6. CSC formally charged Nierras with grave misconduct and dismissed the case filed against Ona’s im-
mediate supervisors. Nierras was penalized with dismissal from service.
7. CA modified the CSC order to suspension for 6 months without pay.

Issue: Whether or not the sexual harassment filed against him warrant his dismissal from service.

Ruling:

1. There is no element of corruption in the case as Nierras did not use his position as Acting General
Manager in the act of sexually harassing Ona. They are also from two different and separate agencies
without any connection.
2. As Ona was able to flee from the arms of Nierras before a harm could be done, the Court agrees with
the modification made by the CA.
3. The act of Nierras constitutes misconduct without question but the dismissal from service is an inap-
propriate penalty.
Delfin G. Villarama vs National Labor Relations Commission and Golden Donuts, Inc, G.R. No.
106341, September 2, 1994

J. Puno/ Second Division

Facts:

1. Delfin Villarama was employed in Golden Donuts as its Materials Manager. He was charged with
sexual harassment by a clerk-typist Divina Gonzaga assigned to his department.
2. Gonzaga alleged that she was driven by Villarama in a motel after their sort of team dinner.
3. The president of the company called the petitioner for a meeting and required an explanation in writ-
ing.
4. The company, while Villarama was on his agreed leave of absence, sent an internal memorandum that
he is no longer connected with the company. A Letter was also sent to Villarama asking him to re-
sign.
5. As he appealed the penalty initially discussed, petitioner was dismissed Golden Donuts prompting
Villarama to file an illegal dismissal case.
6. The Labor Arbiter asserted that due process was not observed in the dismissal of the petitioner and
there was no valid cause. The company was asked to reinstate Villarama in his previous post and pay
his back wages and other damages.

Issue: Whether or not Villarama was not given due process in his dismissal on the alleged sexual harass-
ment case.

Ruling:

1. The petition was not accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC resolution violating
the Revised Circular No. 1-88.
2. Termination of employee should follow the procedure in Article 277 (b) of the Lahore code protect-
ing the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dis-
missal except for a just and authorized cause. This procedure protects both rank and file, and manage-
rial posts.
3. Records show that the immoral act was well substantiated as he initially volunteered to be separated
from the company. He cannot complain that there was no valid cause for his separation.
4. Loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for dismissing a managerial employee. Employers are
given wider latitude of discretion in termination employment of managerial employees on the ground
of lack of trust and confidence.
5. Petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages as there was no bad faith or malice on the
part of the private respondent. He is entitled however to his unused leave credits and proportionate
13th month pay.
Southern Luzon Drug Corporation vs Department of Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No.
199669, April 25, 2017

J. Reyes/En Banc

Facts:

1. RA 7342 was enacted for senior citizens who must be at least 60 years old and has an annual income
of not more than PHP 60,000.00. They can avail privileges under this law. One of which is the 20%
discount on the purchase of medicines. This discount can be availed by covered establishments for a
tax credit of equal amount applied against the income tax due from them.
2. The RA 7342 was amended by RA 9257 removing the income ceiling. This was further modified by
RA 9257 modifying the tax treatment of the discount granted to senior citizens to tax deduction from
gross income computed based on the net of cost of goods sold or services rendered. DSWD will be
the implementing agency for this law and its amendments.
3. The change in the tax treatment did not sit well with the drug store owners and corporations as it will
affect their profitability. With this, a petition from Carlos Superdrug Corporation assailing the consti-
tutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257 particularly in taking private properties without payment of
just compensation.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred on the substantial question that ruled the 20% sales discount for senior
citizens a valid exercise of police power and and invalid exercise of the power of eminent domain for fail-
ure of just compensation.

Ruling:

1. Petitioners are actually not questioning the 20% discount but the how to actually recoup the said dis-
count. The new tax structure for this limits their past profits.
2. A tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement of the senior citizen discount which shifts the bur-
den from the government to the private companies.
3. The basis of the priority provided to the senior citizens is based on the Constitution making the law
enacted as a rightful exercise of the state’s police power. For this reason, when conditions so demand,
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power sheltered by due process and must yield to
general welfare.
4. The law is clear and unequivocal, and the petitioner’s claim for vagueness and validity is without ba-
sis.
Edith’s B. Saguin vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015

J. Mendoza/Second Division

Facts:

1. Editha Saguin, accountant of the Rizal Memorial District Hospital, Dapitan City and Lani D. Grado,
cashier of the same hospital committed an offense in relation to their public office when they took ad-
vantage of their positions, conspiring with each other, caused the deduction from the salaries of the
employees of the Rizal Memorial District Hospital contributions for the Home Development Mutual
Fund (HMDF) amounting to PHP 7,965.58 and loan repayments amounting to PHP 15, 818,81 and
willfully failed to remit the said collections.
2. It was later discovered by these employees that these amounts were not at all remitted to their Pag-
ibig Fund after some of them were denied to loans due to non-remittance and billing of surcharges to
them. They raised this issue to the chief of hospital.
3. According to Grado, the cashier, since the devolution of the hospital to the provincial government, the
same agency would remit the Pag-ibig funds. Sagiun also pointed to the provincial government who
asked all the processes be accomplished.
4. The case was escalated up the Sandiganbayan which affirmed the MTCC and RTC rulings that
Saguin, Grado and Ruby Dalman are guilty in violation of PD 1752 and RA 7742.

Issue: Whether or not Saguin was rightfully charged of violating RA 7742.

Ruling:

1. Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the Court agrees with the petitioners
that their case falls within the exception that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were based on misappre-
hension of facts.
2. The failure of remittances to the Pag-big fund was not without lawful cause. They presumed that the
responsibility should be upon the Provincial government who has control and supervision over de-
volved agency.
3. Petitioners should bot be penalized when they had legal basis in setting aside the funds and trans-
ferred the same from the hospital to the provincial government.
4. The RTC and Sandiganbayan’s findings were not accurate. The devolution of the hospital to the pro-
vincial government, who now manages the financial affairs of the hospital, is a valid justification.
5. There was no refusal on the part of the petitioners only confusion as to their roles.
Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Pag-I big Fund vs Christina Sagun, G.R. No. 205698,
July 31, 2018

J. Bersamin/En Banc

Facts:

1. This is about the Globe Asiatique (GA) case where it entered into a CoSale Real Estate Mortgage
with HDMF for its Xevera Project.
2. GA would allowed buyers of its real estate obtain loans from the HMDF. While the latter validates
the loan applications, it discovered 351 fraudulent transactions and accounts committed both by GA
and HDMF officers. This caused HDMF revoke all loans with GA.
3. Due to this fraud, HMDF incurred PHP 1.04 billion. This pushed the Department of Justice to pursue
a criminal case for syndicated estafa against the officers of GA including Delfin Lee and Christina
Sagun.

Issue: Whether or not there was a probable cause for the filing for syndicated estafa.

Ruling:

1. Syndicated estafa will only prosper if (a) the perpetrators are at least five, (b) they must have formed
or managed a rural bank, cooperative, association or any other corporation or association that solicits
funds for general public, and (c) they intent to carry out unlawful or illegal act. These criteria were
not met.
2. The respondents may be charged with simple estafa as there is sufficient basis to support it.
3. The provisions providing that the loan agreements which the GA assessed and approved were existing
and qualified, and the documents they have submitted were valid reasons why HDMF entered into
agreement. Without such, the agreement would not have been made.
4. GA’s officers can facilitate to create a criminal design to make it appear that GA had numerous quali-
fied borrowers/buyers.
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation vs Commission on Audit, Michael G. Aguinaldo, Chair-
person, and Angelina Villanueva, Director IV, G.R. No. 235832, November 3, 2020

J. Inting/ En Banc

Facts:

1. PHIC Resident auditor issued notice of disallowances against certain benefits granted by PHIC Board
of Directors to its personnel on the ground that these were without the approval from the Office of the
President as required by Memorandum Order No. 20 and Administrative Order No. 103.
2. These ND’s were appealed by PHIC but was denied by COA as these transactions were deemed to
have made not in good faith as the law requires.
3. PHIC contented fiscal autonomy but recent Supreme Court ruling says that the power of the agency to
fix the compensation and allowances of its officers and employees is subject to the standards laid
down by applicable laws.

Issue: Whether or not the disallowed allowances and benefits are within the PHIC’s jurisdiction to fix.

Ruling:

1. For the ND’s due to late filing, COA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
PHIC’s appeal.
2. As a general rule, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is
not only mandatory but jurisdictional.
3. PHIC is required to observe the policies and guidelines laid down by the office of the President relat-
ing to position classification, allowances and compensation and to report to the same office through
the DBM. PHIC’s fiscal autonomy does not justify their actions especially that there were disal-
lowances of the same cases in the past as flagged by COA.
4. In terms of the efficiency gifts, the amount given to and received by the payees or recipients should
be returned.
Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco And Sebastian Chua vs Ronaldo Simbol, Wilfreda N.
Comia and Lorna E. Estrella, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006

J. Puno/Second Division

Facts:

1. The company is engaged in trading of paper products where Ongsitco is its manager of Personnel and
Administration Department while Chua is its Managing Director. The petitioners were all regular em-
ployees of the company.
2. Simbol met Alma Dayrit, also an employee of the company whom he got married with. Prior to the
marriage Ongsitco advised the couple that one of them should resign pursuan to existing company
policies should they get married. Simbol resigned. This is the same scenario for Comia.
3. Estrella on the other hand was impregnated by her married co-worker Zuniga. She decided to resign
instead of termination due to immorality per the same company policy.
4. While they have resigned, the factual circumstance was they were asked to resign. this prompted the
respondents to file a complaint for unfair labor practice and constructive dismissal. This was dis-
missed by labor arbiter since the company has management prerogative.

Issue: Whether or not the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company vi-
olates the rights of the employee under the Constitution and the labor code or is a valid exercise of man-
agement prerogative.

Ruling:

1. To justify a bonafide occupation qualification, the company should prove (a) that the employment
qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved and, (b) that there is a
factual basis for believing that all of substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be un-
able to properly perform the duties of the job.
2. The requirement of the company must be reasonable under circumstances to qualify as valid exercise
of the management prerogative. There is no reasonable business necessity in this case.
3. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage within their employee could be detrimental to its business
operations.
4. The absence of a statute expressly prohibition marital discrimination cannot benefit the petitioners.
5. The 1995 policy of the company is violative to the constitutional rights towards marriage.
Armando G. Yrasuegui versus Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008

J. Reyes, R.T./ Third Division

Facts:

1. The manual of PAL for Cabin and Crew Administration set the ideal weight for a man based on his
height and structure. For the petitioner’s, it should be from 147-166 pounds.
2. He was given 90 days to meet to ideal weight but he remained to be the same even after it. PAL de-
cided to make him remain grounded until he satisfactorily complies with the weight standards.
3. He did not report to his every two weeks weight check prompting PAL to serve him a Notice of Ad-
ministrative Charge for violating the standard weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being
discriminated.
4. After 5 years of monitoring his weight and still did not meet the set fort policy, he was terminated.
5. Labor Arbiter and the NLRC agreed that PAL weight standards is reasonable because of the nature of
the job of the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not he was validly dismissed.

Ruling:

1. The dismissal of the employee falls under Article 282(e) of the Labor code.
2. Petitioner has only himself to blame since he did not avail PAL’s offer of company physician.
3. PAL’s dismissal is reasonable as it abides by a bond fide occupational qualification.
4. The weight standards is discipline imposed by PAL due to the nature of its business.
5. Since his dismissal is not for serious misconduct or question of moral character, separation pay
should be awarded in favor of the employee.