LEX SCEPTICUS

People of the Philippines vs Hon. Francisco Men Abad, Julius Robles, Eduardo Bandao, Marcos Oyagon, Daguyo Uyang, Udulon Lattod, Buccahan Mundiguing, Junior Mundiguing, Piwit Tundagui, Guinomon Chonga-Ap, Fernando Tid-Ong, Julio Ballogan, Fernan Gaggo, Carmen Gaggo and Balbina Pocya GR No. L-55132                                                               August 30, 1988 Facts: Director of Mines issued a commercial lease permit to Felix de Castro (Felix) to quarry, extract, and carry away sand and gravel at Banaue, Ifugao. Felix filed a criminal case against respondents (Robles, Bandao, Oyagon, Uyang, Lattod, Buccahan Mundiguing, Junior Mundiguing, Tundagui, Chonga-Ap, Tid-Ong, Ballogan, Fernan Gaggo, Carmen Gaggo and Pocya)  for "Theft of Minerals." Respondent contended that there is no crime committed for they had paid sand and gravel tax and therefore the government consented their extraction of the sand and gravel. Issue: Whether or not the acts of res

Jorge Gonzales and Panel of Arbitrators vs Climax Mining Ltd, Climax-Armico Mining Corp. and Autralasian Philippines Mining Inc. GR No. 161957                                                                            February 28,2005 Facts: Gonzales as a claimowner of mineral deposit, entered into a joint-venture via Production-Sharing Letter-Agreement(First Contract)  with Geophil Inc. (Geo) and Inmex Ltd. (Inmex) giving Geo and Inmex 36 months (which was thereafter extended), to develop, operate, mine and exploit the mining claims of Gonzales. Thereafter, Gonzales, Armico, Geo, Inmex and Aumex signed an Addendum Contract (Second Contract)  allowing Armico to apply for FTAA. Climax, Climax-Armico and Australasian then executed a Financial Accomodation Contract (Third Contract)  and Assignment Accession Agreement (Fourth Contract)  between Climax-Armico and Australasian and Memorandum of Agreement (Fifth Contract) between Climax-Armico and Australasian transferring the min

Asaphil Construction and Development Corp. vs Vicente Tuason, Jr., Induplex Inc.  and Mines Adjudication Board G.R. No. 134030                                                                           April 25, 2006 Facts: Tuazon entered into a Contract to Sell (1st contract) with Induplex wheren Induplex agreed to buy all the Perlite Ore that can be found and mined in Tuason's mining claim and in return, Induplex will assist Tuason to secure his rights over the mining claim. Then, Tuason executed an Agreement to Operate Mining Claims (2nd Contract)  in favor of Asaphil. Tuason thereafter filed with the Bureau of Mines-DENR against Induplex and Asaphil for the nullity of the two contracts alleging that the stockholders of Induplex created Ibalon Mineral Resources Inc. and then extracted in Ibalon's mining claim and thereafter entered into a joint Venture with Grefco, Inc. which would violate their agreement. Issue: Whether or not DENR has jurisdiction over the

Apex Mining Co. Inc. et al. vs Garcia et al. GR No. 92605                                                            July 16, 1991 Facts: The case involves Apex Mining Co., Inc (Apex for brevity) and Marcopper Mining Corp. (Marcopper for brevity), regarding their conflicting mining claims in a forest reservation (timberland). After Marcopper registered its mining claim in the said area, they came to know that the area is within an existing forest reservation established by Proclamation No. 369. They thereafter abandoned their mining claim in the said forest reservation and thereafter applied for a Prospecting Permit before the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS for brevity). However, based on the records of BMGS, the said area is also covered by several mining claims of Apex and other Small Scale Miners. Issue: Whether or not the disputed area is within a forest reservation. Ruling: Yes, Proclamation No. 369 made the said area as a forest reserve. According

Benguet Corporation vs Hon. Oscar L. Leviste GR No. L-65021                                                       November 21,1991 Facts: Helen Dizon-Reyes (private-respondent), " Helen" for brevity , filed a case before RTC-Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. Q-30171 alleging ownership over 11 mining claims and seeking the cancellation of the Operations Agreement entered into by Dizon Mines and Benguet Corporation. The antecedent of the facts are as follows: Helen appointed his father Celestino M. Dizon, " Celestino" for brevity, by virtue of an SPA to be her lawful representative to transfer, assign and dispose her 11 mining claims. Celestino, entered into an Agreement with Dizon Mine granting Dizon Mine to explore, develop, exploit and operate 57 mining claims, which includes the 11 mining claims of Helen. Helen and other claim-owners executed a Deed of Ratification of Assignment thereby confirming, transferring, conveying and assigning Dizon

SALES REVIEWER Sales Reviewer Download Disclaimer: I do not own any right or claim to this file.

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER Civil Reviewer from one of the very outstanding lecturer. Balane Civil Law Reviewer  Download Uribe Obligations and Contract Reviewer  Download Disclaimer: I do not own any right or claim to this file.

SMALL CLAIMS Going to court and suing has been very expensive and slow, especially only for collection of a small amount of money. The Supreme Court promulgated the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) . This covers all claims for payments or reimbursements for a sum of money not exceeding P 100,000.00. The claim covers payment or reimbursement arsing from unpaid loan, purchase price of a product or service, value of a stolen or damaged property, amount claimed as damages, etc. Note that in computing the amount the interest and cost of the suit is not included. The Small Claims Court (SCC) has jurisdiction over this cases, however, the rule did not create new courts but merely designated Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trail Courts and Municipal Trial Courts also known as the first-level courts as Small Claims Courts. Another is that there is no need for the person instituting the Small Claim suit to acquire

1. Tabao vs Judge Lilagan Facts: Respondent issued a writ of replevin regarding the seized tanbark by the DENR thru the order of the Prosecutor's Office, due to irregular and incomplete documents. The captain and crew of M/L Hadija was also charged for violation of Section 68 (now Section 78) of PD 705 or The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. Issue(s): 1) Whether or not replevin is a proper remedy wherein the items sought to be recovered are proceeds from illegal logging. 2) Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Ruling: 1) No, the regular courts has no jurisdiction over proceeds from illegal logging. Under the doctrine of primary jursidiction , courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence . That since the seized items is in the custody of the DENR, the latter has jurisdiction over the items and an adminitrative proceedings may have already been commenced concerning the shipm

Labor Cases Compilation 1.)  ISAE vs Quisumbing (Download) ISAE vs Quisumbing Brief Summary The court resolved the issue regarding the:  (1) equality of the foreign hire teachers and local hire teachers, wherein, local hires invokes equality due to fact that local and foreign hires works under the same condition but foreign hires has greater benefits and higher salaries; and (2) if the foreign hire can be included in the bargaining unit with the International School Inc. The court resolved that the equal protection clause is not violated and there is substantial distinction as to their class and there is a reasonable cause why they should be given such benefits and higher salary, although they perform similar work, they have limited tenure unlike that local hires who enjoys security of tenure. The court defined bargaining unit as "a group of employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer

Lope Machete, et al., vs. CA and Celestino Villalon Download full case digest (with efficient paper rule)   Facts:             Private respondent filed a complaint for collection of back rentals and damages before the RTC of Tagbilaran City against herein petitioners. The alleged facts are: 1)    That parties entered into a leasehold agreement regarding private respondent’s landholdings and herein petitioners shall pay a certain amount or percentage of their harvest. 2)    That herein petitioners failed to pay their respective rental despite repeated demands of private respondent. 3)    That petitioner moved to the dismissal of the case on the ground, of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, arguing that the instance case is an agrarian dispute and therefore within the jurisdiction of Department of Agrarian and Reform Adjudication Board. Issue: 1     Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over cases for collection of back rentals from leasehold ten

Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., Download full case digest (with efficient paper rule) Facts: The SC en banc voted 11-0 dismissing the petition filed by HLI Affirm with modifications the resolutions of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC for brevity) revoking Hacienda Luisita Inc.  (HLI for brevity) Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject land in HL under compulsory coverage of the CARP of the government. Thereafter, the SC voting 6-5 averred that there are operative facts that occurred in the premises.  The SC thereat declared that the revocation of the SDP shall, by application of the operative fact principle, give the 5296 qualified Farmworkers Beneficiaries (FWBs for brevity) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or choose actual land distribution. Considering the premises, DAR immediately scheduled a meeting regarding the effects of their choice and therefrom proceeded to se