Feb 2 and 3 2k10 SC Decisions. On board Northwest to Memphis on folding chairs, jeez

How would you feel if you check in the airport and the airline attendant tells you to step aside and wait until everybody has boarded, and then lets you in the plane without a boarding pass? Worse, when you get on the plane, the stewardess offers you the folding chairs meant for the airline staff. By the way, you are also flying from Missouri to Memphis . Rage! Rage! Rage! On these modern days of travel, the budget airline can give you your greatest nightmare. But fear not, the Supreme Court sympathizes with you.

This month, the Supreme Court releases the decision on the airline nightmare case, but it reduces from PHP 3,000,000 to PHP 500,000 the award of moral damages to the family who was made to sit on folding chairs by Northwest Airlines on their way to Memphis from Missouri.

The Court also dismisses a court aide of the MTC of Palompon Leyte for Theft. The decision reads like a whodunit in parts, no kidding. :)

Going the rounds of the local news lately is the decision that reaffirms the rule that hospitals are liable for the negligence of their doctors.

In criminal law, the Court affirms the conviction of an illegal recruiter but reduces the maximum penalty of the accused for the crime of Estafa.

In labor law, it's a field day for management as the Court rules in favor of management in an illegal suspension and dismissal and also in another case where the employee mauled a fellow employee in font of their boss. The Court also affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals in upholding a union leader's suspension on the basis of the company’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules to regulate the use of union leaves. In this case, the union leader took a union leave without the approval of his superior.

In civil law, the Court awards damages to a lessee, whose boarders were evicted by her landlord three months before the lease was up.

In remedial law, the Court declares that the remedy of a litigant whose case was dismissed for failure to prosecute is not certiorari but appeal. In another case, the Court affirms the dismissal of a petition for certiorari because the pleading was not mailed and did not carry an explanation why it wasn't personally served.

In election law, the Court upholds the COMELEC in declaring a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A, Barangay Bagoainguid, Municipality of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur during the Barangay elections as only ten voters were able to cast their votes before violence disrupted the proceedings. In a case involving the local government elections of 2007, the Court also affirms the ruling of the COMELEC in dismissing a pre-proclamation controversy seeking to annul the proclamation of the Mayor of Dulag, Leyte.

In real estate transactions, the Court discusses the difference between a contract to sell and a contract of sale, and elaborates on the rule on double sale. Court also applies the maxim "Primus Tempore, Portior Jure” (First in Time, Stronger in Right) in upholding Ayala Land's titles over several parcels of land in Las Pinas.

On tax remedies, the Court declares that an action by the Bureau of Customs to collect on the bonds issued by a customs broker is not a tax collection case, but a simple civil case; thus, the appeal on the judgment lies not with the Court of Tax Appeal, but with the Court of Appeals.

Finally, for our featured decision, the Court reiterates the rule that in registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land Act for the judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect title, an order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata, not only against the adverse claimant, but also against all persons. In the same case, the Court also fined the Petitioner who threatened to leak to the media the alleged irregularity that a former assistant Sol-Gen adversely handling her case in the lower court became the ponente of the case when it went to the Court of Appeals. The Court says,

We are not blind to petitioner’s clever and foxy interplay of threats alternating with false concern for the reputation of this Court.

It is well to remind petitioner that the Court has consistently rendered justice with neither fear nor favor. The disposition in this case was arrived at after a careful and thorough deliberation of the facts of this case and all the matters pertaining thereto. The records of the case, in fact, show that all the pertinent issues raised by petitioner were passed upon and sufficiently addressed by the appellate court and this Court in their respective resolutions.

As to petitioner’s complaint regarding this Court’s denial of her petition through a mere minute resolution (which allegedly deprived her of due process as the Court did not issue a full-blown decision stating the facts and applicable jurisprudence), suffice it to say that the Court is not duty-bound to issue decisions or resolutions signed by the justices all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate ponencias, extended resolutions or even minute resolutions issued by or upon its authority, depending on its evaluation of a case, as long as a legal basis exists. When a minute resolution (signed by the Clerk of Court upon orders of the Court) denies or dismisses a petition or motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, it is understood that the assailed decision or order, together with all its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are deemed sustained.

Furthermore, petitioner has doggedly pursued her case in this Court by filing three successive motions for reconsideration, including the letter-motion subject of this resolution. This, despite our repeated warnings that “no further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.” Her unreasonable persistence constitutes utter defiance of this Court’s orders and an abuse of the rules of procedure. This, alongside her thinly veiled threats to leak her case to the media to gain public sympathy – although the tone of petitioner’s compliance with our show-cause resolution was decidedly subdued compared to her earlier letters – constitutes contempt of court.

In Republic v. Unimex, we held:

A statement of this Court that no further pleadings would be entertained is a declaration that the Court has already considered all issues presented by the parties and that it has adjudicated the case with finality. It is a directive to the parties to desist from filing any further pleadings or motions. Like all orders of this Court, it must be strictly observed by the parties. It should not be circumvented by filing motions ill-disguised as requests for clarification.

A FEW OBSERVATIONS

If petitioner was, as she adamantly insists, only guarding her constitutional right to due process, then why did she question the validity of the Mendoza decision late in the proceedings, that is, only after her motion for reconsideration in the CA (for its subsequent annulment of the compromise agreement) was denied? It is obvious that it was only when her case became hopeless that her present counsel frantically searched for some ground, any ground to resuscitate his client’s lost cause, subsequently raising the issue. This is evident from a statement in her petition to this Court that:

It is this fresh discovery by the undersigned counsel of the nullity of the proceedings of the Court of Appeals that places in doubt the entire proceedings it previously conducted, which led to the rendition of the February 26, 1992 Decision, a fact that escaped the scrutiny of applicant for registration Flora L. Garcia, as well as her lawyer, Atty. Cayetano Dante Diaz, who died in 1993, and the late Justice Fernando A. Santiago, who stood as counsel for Flora L. Garcia’s successor-in-interest, herein petitioner, Florencia G. Garcia. (Emphasis supplied).

The above cited statement does not help petitioner’s cause at all. If anything, it only proves how desperate the case has become for petitioner and her counsel.

Winnie Monsod Explains the C-5 Controversy

Why not Gordon-Bayani?

Feb 1 round-up: Be careful with those quitclaims

It's the lovely month of February, and the Supreme Court gives us six decisions to start the month.

The Court fines Davao Judge in the amount of PHP 11,000 for delay in deciding a criminal case.

Then, the Court rules that a rural bank president who obtained an PhP 8 Million loan from his bank through a conduit may be charged separately for violation of the DOSRI law (Sec. 83 of RA 337) and Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents (Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reiterates that the remedy for the denial of a Motion to Quash is not Certiorari under Rule 65, and restates the requisites for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

The Court further declares that a delay in the filing of formal charges for the crime of Robbery with homecide by a year does not weaken the credibility of the the testimonies of the prosecution weakness. The Court also rules that the identification of the accused from mug shots presented at a camp does not necessarily mean that the identification was suggestive and therefore invalid.

The Court also affirms the conviction of an accused who raped his ten year old nice five times in one night. The Court similarly rules in the case of another rapist who ravaged his stepdaughter countless times.

In labor law, the Court rules against the effort of Goodrich employees to nullify their quitclaims, which they executed upon termination from their employer. The Court rules,

It is true that the law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities and frustrate just claims of employees. In certain cases, however, the Court has given effect to quitclaims executed by employees if the employer is able to prove the following requisites, to wit: (1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily; (2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (4) the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Our pronouncement in Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission on this matter cannot be more explicit:

Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.



In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled that respondents executed the quitclaims absent any coercion from the petitioners following their voluntary resignation from the company.

In their Comment[19] dated October 1, 2009, respondents themselves admitted that they were not coerced to sign the quitclaims. They, however, maintain that two (2) reasons moved them to sign the said documents: first, they believed Goodrich was terminating its business on account of financial hardship; and second, they thought petitioners will pay them the full amount of their compensation. Respondents insist that they were deceived into signing the quitclaims when they learned that they were not paid their full monetary benefits and after discovering that the company did not really close shop, but instead only assumed a different company name.

We are not persuaded.

First, the contents of the quitclaim documents that have been signed by the respondents are simple, clear and unequivocal. The records of the case are bereft of any substantial evidence to show that respondents did not know that they were relinquishing their right short of what they had expected to receive and contrary to what they have so declared. Put differently, at the time they were signing their quitclaims, respondents honestly believed that the amounts received by them were fair and reasonable settlements of the amounts which they would have received had they refused to voluntarily resign from the said company.

Second, respondents claim that they were deceived because petitioners did not really terminate their business since Mr. Chua Goy had set up another company with the same line of business as Goodrich. Such contention, however, was not proven during the hearing before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Hence, such claim is based only on respondents’ surmises and speculations which, unfortunately, can never be used as a valid and legal ground to repudiate respondents’ quitclaims.

And third, the considerations received by the respondents from Goodrich do not appear to be grossly inadequate vis-à-vis what they should receive in full. As correctly pointed out by the NLRC, the total awards computed by the Labor Arbiter will definitely even be lesser after deducting the 13th month pay for the years 2002 and 2003, which have already been received by the respondents prior to the filing of their complaints, but which the Labor Arbiter still included in his computation. The difference between the amounts expected from those that were received may, therefore, be considered as a fair and reasonable bargain on the part of both parties.

Round-up Jan 26-28 2k10 SC Decisions

The Supreme Court closes the first month of the year with four decisions. It fines CA Associate Justice Amelita Tolentino in the amount of PHP 15,000 for delay in resolving a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition. Justice Tolentino was the judge who convicted Hubert Webb and company in the notorious Visconde Massacre case.

The Court also dismisses a petition for certiorari for failure of the petitioner to file a motion fo reconsideration, and declares that the Court would not annul a simulated sale if a litigant who wanted it annulled was party to the simulation.

Justice Corona (will he or will he not be the next Chief Justice?) writes the Court's opinion as it rejects the recanted testimony of a rape victim and affirms the conviction of the rapist. The Court said,

We affirm the decision of the CA but modify the award of damages.

We see no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant forced AAA, on three separate occasions, and BBB, to engage in sexual intercourse with him.

The “sweetheart theory” is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. Appellant presented no evidence to substantiate his claim.

Furthermore, the Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to reject testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made them change their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Here, the affidavit of retraction was precisely executed by AAA in exchange for financial assistance and land (which she never received).

Lastly, the Court has time and time again ruled that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses as these are self-serving.

Appellant’s guilt of the crime of simple rape through force or intimidation has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape (or P375,000 to AAA and P125,000 to BBB) is in order. Inasmuch as the minority of both AAA and BBB was not proven and their relationship with appellant was outside the scope of Article 14 of the RPC and Article 266-B of RA No 8353, these circumstances cannot be considered as aggravating circumstances.

Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the offense. While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial. This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages.

In this instance, while the Information did not state that appellant possessed a deadly weapon, the prosecution sufficiently established that he threatened his victims with a knife in order to facilitate the commission of his bestial acts and cow his victims into silence. Inasmuch as appellant may not be sentenced to death, the presence of such circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages.

Congress passes Legal Assistance Act

Is that Senator Lito Lapid talking?

SC round-up Jan 22-25 2010

The judiciary.gov.ph site is down this morning, so we turned to the lawphil.net servers, which fortunately are updated on Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court paves the way for the construction of a 85-story Skycity condominium building in Ortigas Ave., cor, EDSA Greenhills, San Juan as it overrules the objections of Greenhills East Association, Inc. The Court says,

The Court cannot find fault in HLURB’s assertion that the real test of whether a land use serves the need of a district is not in the size or height of the buildings but in the sufficiency or surplus of the business or human activities in a given district to which they cater. Land use is affected by the intensity of such activities. Extraordinary population density or overcrowding, brought about by competition for space in the scarce area of the district, is to be avoided. Using this test, the HLURB, which is the clearing house for efficient land use, found no clear showing that respondent EGI’s project if finished would cause havoc in the population level of the land district where the project lies.

What is more, the houses of petitioner GEA’s members are separated by fence and guarded gates from the adjacent areas outside their subdivision. Their exclusiveness amply protects their yen for greater space than the rest of the people of the metropolis outside their enclave can hope for. Respondent EGI’s project offers no threat to the subdivision’s privacy.1avvphil It is on the other side of the fence, wholly unconnected to the workings within the subdivision. The new building would be in the stream of human traffic that passes EDSA and Ortigas Avenue. Consequently, it would largely attract people whose primary activities connect to those wide avenues. It would seem unreasonable for petitioner GEA to dictate on property owners outside their gates how they should use their lands if such use is not in contravention of law.

In another housing law matter, the Court rules that the office of the public prosecutor and the trial court have jurisdiction over criminal actions for violation of P.D. 957; and declares that HLURB’s subsequent issuance to a developer of a license to sell did not extinguish his criminal liability for selling subdivision lots prior to the issuance of such license.

In an ejectment case, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals on the issue of recalling a writ of possession after the PNB, who applied for it, failed to renew its leasehold right over the subject property, a two hectare lot in Binondo Manila.

The Court also restores the tenants of a farm in Urdaneta Pangasinan after the tenants signed away their tenancy rights for Php 3,000. The Court says,

"...tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence in line with the State's policy of achieving a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices."

In criminal law, the Court applies the chain of custody rule in acquitting a drug suspect.

In taxation, the Courtdeclares that credit cooperatives are not liable for withholding taxes on interest from the savings and time deposits of its members and rules in favor of the Municiplaity of Pagbilao and the Province of Quezon over NAPOCOR's claims of exemption from real property taxes for the reason, among others, that NAPOCOR failed to pay under protest before lodging an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals.

In political law, the Supreme Court, through Justice Antonio Carpio shoots down the law creating a new legislative district of the City of Malolos. Justice Roberto Abad dissents.

On the side issue of legal ethics, the Court looks with disfavor on the lawyer who managed to delay the proceedings for the take over of his foreclosed home by GSIS and asks the Integrated bar of the Philippines to initiate disciplinary action on him.

Lastly, the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the principal is not bound by the real estate mortgage executed by the authorized agent in her own name without indicating the principal, but nonetheless, reverses the Court of Appeals on the ground that the principal slept on his rights. Said the Supreme Court,

Notwithstanding the nullity of the real estate mortgage executed by Tabing and her husband, we find that the equity principle of laches is applicable in the instant case. Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Its essential elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (2) delay in asserting complainant’s right after he had knowledge of the defendant’s conduct and after he has an opportunity to sue; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.

There is no absolute rule on what constitutes laches. It is a creation of equity and applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one’s rights but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. The question of laches, we said, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and each case must be decided according to its particular circumstances. Verily, in a number of cases, it had been held that laches, the essence of which is the neglect to assert a right over a long period of time, may prevent recovery of a titled property.

In the present case, records clearly show that respondents could have filed an action to annul the mortgage on their properties, but for unexplained reasons, they failed to do so. They only questioned the loan and mortgage transactions in December 1996, or after the lapse of more than five (5) years from the date of the foreclosure sale. It bears noting that the real estate mortgage was registered and annotated on the titles of respondents, and the latter were even informed of the extrajudicial foreclosure and the scheduled auction. Instead of impugning the real estate mortgage and opposing the scheduled public auction, respondents’ lawyer wrote a letter to petitioner and merely asked that the scheduled auction be postponed to a later date. Even after five (5) years, respondents still failed to oppose the foreclosure and the subsequent transfer of titles to petitioner when their agent, Tabing, acting in behalf of Cayetano, sent a letter proposing to buy back the properties. It was only when the negotiations failed that respondents filed the instant case. Clearly, respondents slept on their rights.

Supreme Court harvest of January 21, 2010

Fourteen decisions highlight the Supreme Court's day on January 21, 2010 with rulings on various topics.

On taxation, the Supreme Court discusses the effects of the BIR'sVoluntary Assessment Program and the Commissioner's futile attempt to avoid it in a case against a taxpayer who failed to file income tax returns. The Court also ruled that a taxpayer failed to file an appeal on time with Court of Tax Appeals and resolved the issue of the tax liabilities of pawnshops for VAT and Documentary Stamps Tax on pawn tickets

On immigration, the Court rules on
the deportation of an undocumented Korean.

In criminal law, the Court declares that an affidavit of desistance failed to obtain the intended results in this case for frustrated murder, while it affirms conviction of a man who raped his stepdaughter . In another rape case, the Court denies the appeal of a rapist who employed the "sweetheart defense".

The Supreme Court outlines the circumstances that will merit execution pending appeal, and considers piercing the veil of corporate fiction in resolving a case regarding the lease of a property in Tagaytay for 90 years.

In civil law, the Court upholds the extinction of the easement of right of way upon consolidation in one person of the ownership of the dominant and the servient estates. while discussing the Parole Evidence rule on the same case.

A slew of technical errors in a summary judgment case forces the Supreme Court to recite the classic mantras on technicalities.

In the field of labor law, the Court grants the claims for total disability of a sea farer who suffered a stroke, but was certified by the company physician as fit to work more than five months after. The Court also sides with labor on the issue of constructive dismissal by an employee who tendered a resignation letter.

Most interesting is how the Supreme Court berates ABS-CBN in a labor case in a manner that will not be written in the news,

The termination of employment of the four drivers occurred under highly questionable circumstances and with plain and unadulterated bad faith.

The records show that the regularization case was in fact the root of the resulting bad faith as this case gave rise and led to the dismissal case. First, the regularization case was filed leading to the labor arbiter’s decision declaring the petitioners, including Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, to be regular employees. ABS-CBN appealed the decision and maintained its position that the petitioners were independent contractors.

In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN took matters into its own hands and terminated the petitioners’ services, clearly disregarding its own appeal then pending with the NLRC. Notably, this appeal posited that the petitioners were not employees (whose services therefore could be terminated through dismissal under the Labor Code); they were independent contractors whose services could be terminated at will, subject only to the terms of their contracts. To justify the termination of service, the company cited redundancy as its authorized cause but offered no justificatory supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out the petitioners’ activities in the exercise of its management prerogative.

ABS-CBN’s intent, of course, based on the records, was to transfer the petitioners and their activities to a service contractor without paying any attention to the requirements of our labor laws; hence, ABS-CBN dismissed the petitioners when they refused to sign up with the service contractor. In this manner, ABS-CBN fell into a downward spiral of irreconcilable legal positions, all undertaken in the hope of saving itself from the decision declaring its “talents” to be regular employees.

By doing all these, ABS-CBN forgot labor law and its realities.

It forgot that by claiming redundancy as authorized cause for dismissal, it impliedly admitted that the petitioners were regular employees whose services, by law, can only be terminated for the just and authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.

Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must be respected in any move affecting the security of tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran the risk of committing unfair labor practice – both a criminal and an administrative offense. It similarly forgot that an exercise of management prerogative can be valid only if it is undertaken in good faith and with no intent to defeat or circumvent the rights of its employees under the laws or under valid agreements.

Lastly, it forgot that there was a standing labor arbiter’s decision that, while not yet final because of its own pending appeal, cannot simply be disregarded. By implementing the dismissal action at the time the labor arbiter’s ruling was under review, the company unilaterally negated the effects of the labor arbiter’s ruling while at the same time appealling the same ruling to the NLRC. This unilateral move is a direct affront to the NLRC’s authority and an abuse of the appeal process.

All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith. A close parallel we can draw to characterize this bad faith is the prohibition against forum-shopping under the Rules of Court. In forum-shopping, the Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing similar and repetitive actions for the same cause with the intent of somehow finding a favorable ruling in one of the actions filed. ABS-CBN’s actions in the two cases, as described above, are of the same character, since its obvious intent was to defeat and render useless, in a roundabout way and other than through the appeal it had taken, the labor arbiter’s decision in the regularization case. Forum-shopping is penalized by the dismissal of the actions involved. The penalty against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no less.

The errors and omissions do not belong to ABS-CBN alone. The labor arbiter himself who handled both cases did not see the totality of the company’s actions for what they were. He appeared to have blindly allowed what he granted the petitioners with his left hand, to be taken away with his right hand, unmindful that the company already exhibited a badge of bad faith in seeking to terminate the services of the petitioners whose regular status had just been recognized. He should have recognized the bad faith from the timing alone of ABS-CBN’s conscious and purposeful moves to secure the ultimate aim of avoiding the regularization of its so-called “talents.”

The NLRC, for its part, initially recognized the presence of bad faith when it originally ruled that:

While notice has been made to the employees whose positions were declared redundant, the element of good faith in abolishing the positions of the complainants appear to be wanting. In fact, it remains undisputed that herein complainants were terminated when they refused to sign an employment contract with Able Services which would make them appear as employees of the agency and not of ABS-CBN. Such act by itself clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the respondent in carrying out the company’s redundancy program x x x.

On motion for reconsideration by both parties, the NLRC reiterated its “pronouncement that complainants were illegally terminated as extensively discussed in our Joint Decision dated December 15, 2004.” Yet, in an inexplicable turnaround, it reconsidered its joint decision and reinstated not only the labor arbiter’s decision of January 17, 2002 in the regularization case, but also his illegal dismissal decision of April 21, 2003. Thus, the NLRC joined the labor arbiter in his error that we cannot but characterize as grave abuse of discretion.

The Court cannot leave unchecked the labor tribunals’ patent grave abuse of discretion that resulted, without doubt, in a grave injustice to the petitioners who were claiming regular employment status and were unceremoniously deprived of their employment soon after their regular status was recognized. Unfortunately, the CA failed to detect the labor tribunals’ gross errors in the disposition of the dismissal issue. Thus, the CA itself joined the same errors the labor tribunals committed.

The injustice committed on the petitioners/drivers requires rectification. Their dismissal was not only unjust and in bad faith as the above discussions abundantly show. The bad faith in ABS-CBN’s move toward its illegitimate goal was not even hidden; it dismissed the petitioners – already recognized as regular employees – for refusing to sign up with its service contractor. Thus, from every perspective, the petitioners were illegally dismissed.

By law, illegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The four dismissed drivers deserve no less.

Moreover, they are also entitled to moral damages since their dismissal was attended by bad faith.For having been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect their rights and interest, the petitioners are likewise entitled to attorney’s fees.

Nuisance candidates on election day

One of the more relevant decisions by the Supreme Court issued in January this year is the case of the nuisance candidate who managed to hang on to the list of legitimate candidates until a month after election day. The winning margin is only 104 votes and the nuisance candidate managed to invalidate 5,401 votes. Tough luck for the legitimate candidate. The facts of the case are as follows:

In the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner Martinez and private respondent Salimbangon were among the candidates for Representative in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu Province. On March 29, 2007, Edilito C. Martinez, a resident of Barangay Tambongon, Daan-Bantayan, Cebu, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position.

On April 3, 2007, Martinez filed a petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate.However, the Commission on Elections Second Division issued its Resolution declaring Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate only on June 12, 2007 or almost one (1) month after the elections.

On July 9, 2007, Salimbangon was proclaimed winner in the congressional elections for the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu on the basis of official results showing that he garnered sixty-seven thousand two hundred seventy-seven (67,277) votes as against Martinez who garnered sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three (67,173) votes, or a difference of one hundred four (104) votes.

Martinez filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam on July 18, 2007 and on July 26, 2007, the HRET granted his motion to convert the same into a Regular Protest of all one thousand one hundred twenty-nine (1,129) precincts of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu.

The election protest is based on three hundred (300) ballots more or less with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative which the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) did not count for Martinez on the ground that there was another congressional candidate (Edilito C. Martinez) who had the same surname.

Salimbangon filed his Answer with Counter-Protest stating that the Minutes of Voting (MOV) inside the ballot boxes in all the protested precincts contain no recorded objections regarding straying of votes claimed by Martinez, and that it was very seldom, if at all, that there were ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative.

In its Decision dated May 28, 2009, the HRET resolved each of the claims and objections respectively raised by protestant and protestee applying the rules for appreciation of ballots. The Tribunal recognized as most crucial the issue of whether or not ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative should be counted in favor of Martinez. Thus, the election protest "will rise or fall on how the Tribunal [appreciates said] ballots."[6]

Ruling on the issue, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal upheld Salimbangon and considered the ballots as stray in accordance with Sec. 211 (1) of the Omnibus Election Code which provides:

"Where only the first name of a candidate or only his surname is written, the vote for such candidate is valid, if there is no other candidate with the same first name or surname for the same office."

Since the name of Edilito C. Martinez was still included in the official list of candidates on election day (May 14, 2007), the HRET held that five thousand four hundred one (5,401) ballots with "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" only written on the line for Representative were properly denied on the ground that there was no way of determining the real intention of the voter. These ballots were included in the 7,544 ballots denied as votes for Martinez in 961 precincts.

What then is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate as such in a final judgment after the elections? Should ballots containing only the similar surname of two (2) candidates be considered as stray votes or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?

The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. Election contests, therefore, involve the adjudication not only of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also of paramount public interest considering the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.

In controversies pertaining to nuisance candidates as in the case at bar, the law contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the similarity of surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. A nuisance candidate is thus defined as one who, based on the attendant circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, his sole purpose being the reduction of the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation that ballots with only the surname of such candidate will be considered stray and not counted for either of them.

We therefore hold that ballots indicating only the similar surname of two (2) candidates for the same position may, in appropriate cases, be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not considered stray, even if the other candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final judgment after the elections. Accordingly, the 5,401 votes for "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" should be credited to petitioner giving him a total of 72,056 votes as against 67,108 total votes of private respondent. Petitioner thus garnered more votes than private respondent with a winning margin of 4,948 votes.

COMMENT:

In the original text of this case, the SC castigated the COMELEC for its inefficiency in failing to resolve the issue of the nuisance candidate before the election. Shouldn't there be a law penalizing nuisance candidates?

UPDATE:

Speaker Nograles refuses to allow Martinez to take his congressional seat, even as there are only three days before Congress adjourns.

A case of malicious prosecution?

As a follow-up to the Supreme Court Round-up as of January 20, 2010, a discussion of one interesting case regarding recovery of damages for malicious prosecution would be in order.

In this case, the City of Olongapo charged a hotel owner with the (a) theft of electrical current punished under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 401; and (b) disengaging and tampering with his electric meter’s potential link, thereby resulting to a zero-zero power consumption in violation of City Ordinance 23, series of 1989, and P.D. 401.

After the preliminary investigation, the state prosecutor issued a resolution, dismissing the complaints for insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, however, the Acting Secretary of Justice modified the State Prosecutor’s resolution and directed the filing of the corresponding information for theft of electricity against petitioner Tiu. Subsequently, however, the Secretary of Justice reconsidered and ordered instead the withdrawal of any information that might in the meantime have been filed in court. When the matter was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court, both courts affirmed the dismissal of the City’s complaints against the hotel owner.

Claiming that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation and that the hotel suffered loss of business goodwill, financial reverses, and injured reputation, the owner and the hotel both filed an action for damages against the City for having filed a malicious and unfounded charge of theft of electricity against them.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On appeal the Supreme Court said that in order to establish a case for malicious prosecution, the hotel and the hotel owner must prove the following elements: (1) that the respondent City had caused their prosecution; (2) that the criminal action ended in their acquittal; (3) that, in bringing the action, the City had no probable cause; and (4) that it was impelled by legal malice—an improper or a sinister motive. Both parties concede that the first two elements were present in this case. What needs to be determined is whether or not petitioners have proved the last two elements.

The respondent City did not concoct out of thin air the criminal charge for theft of electricity against petitioners. It filed the case based on the result of an investigation carried out at petitioner’s premises which indicated a tampering of the electric meter. Indeed, petitioners never claimed that the inspection of petitioner's premises was just a farce. The City did not merely conjure the charge with the intention of vexing petitioners. It acted within its right to bring up the result of that investigation to the authorities for evaluation and resolution.

Finally, no evidence was shown that there had been bad blood between respondent City and petitioners prior to the filing of the criminal charge, which circumstance if present could justify a malicious motive in filing the charge. Resort to judicial processes, by itself, is not an evidence of ill will which would automatically make the complainant liable for malicious prosecution. Otherwise, peaceful recourse to the courts will be greatly discouraged and the exercise of one’s right to litigate would become meaningless and empty.

Even if the Court were to concede that the City branded petitioners as thieves, asked the people not to patronize their business, and had been overly zealous in pursuing the criminal complaint that it filed, these are not the legal malice contemplated in suits for malicious prosecution as the determining factor is evil motive in bringing the action, not the acts exhibited by the complainant after the case had been filed.

COMMENT:

Bad faith is the foundation for this kind of case for damages. Considering that the complainant is the City Government of Olongapo, which is a government instrumentality, it could easily rely on the presumption of regularity of its conduct in the filing of those cases of Theft of Electricity. Thus, in spite of having lost its criminal cases, the City has a strong defense against a counter-charge for malicious prosecution.

It would be interesting to note, however, if this case would prosper before the Ombudsman against the officials involved under Sec. 3 (e) R.A. 3019, which punishes officials for "...(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence..."

The Supreme Court Round Up as of January 20, 2010

The Supreme Court decided three election cases early this January concerning the following matters:

1. The effect of deficiency in docket fees in a COMELEC appeal.

2. What happens to a nuisance candidate's votes after he is declared as nuisance beyond election day.

3, Requisites of execution pending appeal in local election protests.

The SC also ruled on the jurisdiction of the DARAB which hinges on tenancy relations.

The Court rendered some key passages in a ruling on forgery in a deed of sale of land, the effect of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, mistake of counsel, fraud in consummating a contract of sale and undervaluation of the sale of real property to defraud the BIR.

The court also made pronouncements on misreading terms of an extra-judicial settlement and that mandamus will not be issued to compel the production of a will.

The Court ruled on how the government bungled a drugs buy bust case and how it succeeded in another.

The Court fined two judges for delay, PHP 11,000 for one and PHP 20,000 for another and dismissed court personnel for tampering with evidence.

Court reiterated previous rulings on forum shopping and receivership http://tinyurl.com/yjktvag and made pronouncements on liquidator's fees.

It also ordered the reduction of excessive penalty and other charges by a bank in a foreclosure proceeding.

On the Civil Service, the Court awarded damages to a Customs official for her superior's actions in preventing her from doing assigned tasks and for not allowing her to get official recognition. In another case, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the qualifications of a civil service employee.

The Court outlined the requisites for awarding damages in an action for malicious prosecution.

In Criminal Law, the Court affirmed doctrines on corpus delicti and extra-judicial confessions, and several points on rape here here, and here.

Noteworthy is this murder case with bizarre twists and turns.

Equally noteworthy is a ruling that almost ruled that an unauthenticated fax from abroad is sufficient to establish probable cause for Estafa. But, SC said that judges should be thorough in dismissing a case on the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice and remanded the case for proper determination of probable cause by the judge.

Happy New Year to All

09 was such a drag. Here's to a better year ahead, 2010. I will be hanging around the twitter page more often this year. See you around.

Test post from a Blackberry Bold

The first duty of society is JUSTICE. -- Alexander Hamilton
"Sent via BlackBerry from Smart"

Day Two in Cotabato: Instant coffee is dirty water with sugar

1. Ces has an aunt who told me a little story about Kapeng Barako from Batangas. She said when she was young, coffee was Kapeng Barako, the type one buys from the market, which is real dried coffee beans and ground with the manual grinder. This coffee is then packed in cellophanes and sold in centavo denominations. Coffee is then boiled in a coffee kettle and served the whole day, not just breakfast. Fast forward years after with the advent of instant coffee. With massive advertising, people were deceived into believing that instant coffee is better than Kapeng Barako. She remembered that they stopped serving Kapeng Barako to guests in their house, and started serving instant coffee, because they thought Kapeng Barako was inferior and should not be served to well-meaning guests. For many years, this is what she believed until she went abroad and lived in the United States when her guests became offended every time she served instant coffee. Then she realized Kapeng Barako is better than instant. Why am I saying this?

I woke up at 6 am and had my first Cotabato shower. I didn't use the heater, because I was uncertain about the inn's eletrical connections. Surprisingly, the water pressure was strong. The water felt great. I wondered how they treat the water and whether the water was ground or surface water. Then, I went down to the cafe after and ordered coffee. Whoa! They gave me Nescafe 3 in 1. Que horror! I told myself next time I vow to bring my own French press and my own brew. I am now being assaulted by a multinational which has managed to convince this country that its great coffee tradition is inferior to Nescafe Classic, thanks but no thanks to advertising and payolas.

But alas, I have to give it a try. I took a sip and made my verdict. This thing tastes like burnt corn! Reading its package reveals that its ingredients are "sugar creamer (contains milk proteins) natural and artificial flavors artificial sweetener and NESCAFE CLASSIC". What is in Nescafe Classic? Why didn't they reveal it in the label? This is not coffee. It's probably a mixture of the cheapest and most inferior coffee beans and burnt Boy Bawangs. Better to say it's dirty water with sugar.



2. The Task Force has a clean and wide office inside the ARMM compound. Curiously, Cotabato City is not part of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) even as the seat of government of the ARMM is in the City. JC said part of the compound, particularly the auditing and accounting offices, have caught fire mostly due to "faulty electrical wiring". That is interesting, but I have a hunch the fires were caused not by faulty electrical wiring but some finance officer trying to burn an audit trail. Of course, I could be wrong. The meeting wenton uneventfully, but for the fact that again, I have been served Nescafe 3 in 1. I told myself is the the official coffee of Cotabato City? I asked JC if there's a way he could score me a brewed up? He muttered something to the secretary and after an hour, I had my first real coffee in Cotabato. My day is made.



3. We went to the Lourdes Grotto site which is maintained by OMI priests. The place looks like a forest sanctuary. tall trees and vines. They have the stations of the cross all over the compound. It must be a fine place to reflect during Holy Week. JC said unfortunately it has been a favorite dating place for young Muslim lovers. I noticed he was right, because there were about six young couples dating in the picnic area. I couldn't tell if they were Muslims though.



4. I went up the grotto looked at the stoneworks around the image. It's marvelous. I prayed a decade of the rosary because I didn't want to stall JC. By the way last night there was an EWTN preacher who said that we should pray the three mysteries of the rosary because the Pope does so. Being busy is not an excuse because he said nobody could be busier than the Pope.



5. While leaving the grotto, we were met by Fr. Dick Pomier. My friend JC who knows him from way back introduced me as the legal counsel fo the Task Force. Fr. Dick had kind words for the Task Force and he said he was impressed by the presentation of the Archbishop who heads the Task Force. Then, he talked about his frustrations on his proposal to have a water theme park in Cotabato and griped about the commercial complex that was built instead of the theme park. "Who wants to go there? They're selling the same things in that commercial area that they're selling in the downtown area." We bid him goodbye and he sent his regards to our boss.

6. We went to the Pedro Colina Hill (PC Hill) JC said it affords a great view of the city. The road to the top of the hill is spiraling up, but the view is blocked by tall grass and wayward shrubs. The place is poorly kept. When we got to the top, it said that the place is restricted. So we had to go down the same way, although glimpses of the Cotabato City coastline would show up in between the shrubs now and then.

7. On the way back to the inn, we passed by the entrance of the Kutawato caves. It's closed. JC said it has become a haven for drug users and dealers, so the government decided to shut it down. The cave is actually beneath the PC Hill. He said inside the cave, Japanese artifacts from World War II could be found , rusty guns bullets, helmets etc. It is also inhabited by snakes and bats. He said a Norwegian mountaneering group tried once to explore the cave, but they had to stop before they could actually explore it fully. They said the cave has to be cleaned for it to be opened to the public. That's just too bad because the city took its name from the caves. if the cavees are unkept, it somehow mirrors how the city treats itself. I told JC we should make the government of Cotabato City approve an ordinance to make the Kutawato caves a national park. It would surely attract attention from the Indiana Joneses among us.

8. I bought same mats, malong, and shawls for Ces. JC said I should also bring some durian, the foul smelling delicious fruit. I wanted to beg off on the durian, but JC said it's a must.

9. I asked JC, where am I likely to get mugged, Quiapo or Cotabato City? He said Quiapo. Ok, that sounded very re-assuring.

Day One in Cotabato: All that be can said or Crackberry in Cotabato

1. I remember my former teacher, Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J. who used to mock tourists who visit a place once and go around telling every one afterwards that they have known everything about the place. The danger really is for me to feel and for people to believe that these notes are complete and accurate. Of course, that is hardly the intention in this enterprise. No one will ever have the complete notes about this wonderful city. Chuang Tsu, right? When everything that could be said has been said, the most important things have still not been said. So, what gives? Let's just say these notes are about travelling to Cotabato City on a Blackberry.

2. On the approach to the runway, the airplane flew near a large mountain which looked spectacular on the plane. I also saw an island which looked like a mini-Negros Island. I learned later that the mountain is called Tuldok Mamot, and the island is Bongo. I haven't been this thrilled landing on an airport since my last trip to Legazpi City when the pilot treated us to a crater view of the majestic Mt. Mayon.

We landed at Lawang airport at around 1:40pm. It's just one runway and a one storey structure but it looks very clean. There is one conveyor belt that waits for the baggages to be unloaded and distributed among the passengers. It really reminds me of the Legazpi City airport, although Legazpi's airport does not even have a conveyor belt.




3. My friend JC who comes from this place took me to a local inn Azolea Pension House, about 20 mins from the airport. He annotated the views on the way to the hotel. I learned that the airport is within the camp of the 16th Infantry Brigade, which explains the two armored personnel carriers (APCs) that I saw around the airport. A nice middle aged lady told me that they are like toys to them because they often see them roaming the city. We took the main road and got to Tamuntaka Bridge. JC said the bridge is often the sight of ambushes and kidnappings, which explains the police checkpoint before the bridge. Then JC pointed to a gated house (pretty large gate actually) and he said the owner there had so much money. One day it was attacked by robbers who killed everyone inside it. I hope he was kidding. I saw signs which said Lourdes grotto. I learned later that they have a replica here of the Lourdes Grotto in France. We passed by the Archbishop's palace and the large and beautifully designed City Hall. The lady told me, however, that it's only beautiful from the outside, which made me wonder what is inside that building.


4. When we got to the inn, I had a lunch of porkchops, rice and Coke. I went online using a bluetooth connection between my VAIO P and the E63. The connection was pretty sturdy as Ces and I managed to talk on video mode for about an hour with minimal interference.


5. Thereafter, JC took me around the city on a pick up. I noticed the big houses looked like fortresses with guardhouses on top of their walls. JC said you can tell that they're houses of politicians because of their fortifications. I saw a Mcdonald's branch near a church. JC said a grenade was hurled their once killing some faithful who were hearing mass and damaging the Mcdonald's store in front of it. Then I saw Jollibee and a mall. When we were passing by the "Chinese" area, it was about 6:00 pm, the shops were already closed because the proprietors fear of getting kidnapped. Then, JC pointed me to Young's Theater, said to be the only theater in the city. It had a big sign in front, which said, "Stop Kidnapping", a pretty loud statement that is more like a cry for help to me.

6. Somebody suggested we eat in a restaurant called, "Peaches". But JC said it would be better if we just stay in the hotel and get somebody to cook crabs for us.Indeed, by 7:00 pm, JC knocked on my door. The crabs were being served on the cafe with Philippine salmon. They were delicious sea crabs, three large ones and several slices of juicy salmon. JC ate them as if they were the most ordinary things in the world. I ate my share quietly savoring the treat. I told myself I would bring some to Manila, when I return.

7. Before retiring to bed, I turned on EWTN channel on the tv. There was a replay of the Pope's mass for Africa. I decided to keep it on until I doze off to ward off the evil spirits. Nighty night in Cotabato City.

(To be continued)

Notes on a trip to Cotabato City

1. The flight is 12:10 pm. I packed clothes for three days and remembered to bring two red shirts for two nights to ward away evil spirits. Ces prepared the toiletries and they were good to go. The hardest part is choosing which books to bring. Since the last out of town trip, I have accumulated reading backlog of more than six months. Eventually I decided to bring NVM Gonzalez's Grammar of Dreams, Jimmy Abad's In Ordinary Time, Ricky de Ungria's Levitations, a couple of New Yorkers and Neil Gaiman's 1602. I decided to let go of Borges's Selected Non-Fiction because it was too thick. I've had these books for months, but my weekly routine keeps me away from them. Now, three days in the south will give me time to be with these kindred spirits.

I have been appointed as a member of the Bids and Awards Committee of a Presidential Task Force. The Committee will procure consulting services to solve the Mindanao flooding. The interesting fact is, the Task Force is based in Cotabato City. I have never been to that city and never imagined that I would go there once in my life. After getting ready with my baggage, I decided to update my Facebook status: "Preparing for a trip to Cotabato City. Hope to debunk the myth that it is no man's land."


2.When I got to the Centennial Terminal, I decided to have coffee and found a new airport concessionaire, Ya Kun Kaya Toast. The place claims that it has been serving coffee since 1944 in Singapore.



The menu looks unique, a bundle of coffee, French toast and two boiled eggs for Php 165, expensive but may be worth a try. Upon ordering, I was appalled that the counter girl asked whether I wanted condensed milk on my coffee. Que horror! The counter girl said it is the Singaporean coffee tradition. I told her I take coffee only black or with fresh milk. I looked around and found out that the choices were condensed milk, evaporated milk or black. I said I will settle for black.




After paying, I got an open table just outside the kiosk and then the coffee came with French toast and hard boiled eggs.



The food reminded of my childhood days, travelling from Mindoro to Manila. Boiled eggs were staple in those trips, because they were filling and easy to eat. I wondered though if this idea would work side by side with Starbucks or Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. But the sight of the Starbuck types eating hard boiled eggs seems incredulous.


3. What types take the plane to Cotabato City? I looked around me on the queue to board the flight and everyone looks regular. A couple of Muslim ladies in their traditional headdress, family types with their little boys, a Caucasian with a sarong wrapped around his head wearing a black shirt which said something like www.kidsforpeacefoundation.org. I told myself, if this guy feels safe going to Catabato city on that shirt, it must be safe for everyone too.

The plane is cramped. I figured, if I had grown one more inch from my 5'6" frame, my knees would be crushed in between these seats. Time was when these Airbus 320's were spacious and comfortable. But the business types simply have the last word on airline comfort for passengers.

The plane moved to the runway before the 12:10 pm call time. But it had to stop there as there were three other planes about to take off, said the pilot. Weather is fine in Cotabato. We would be flying to an altitude of 29,000 feet, over San Jose Occidental Mindoro, Iloilo and then to Cotabato.

When the plane took off, I began reading Neil Gaiman's 1602. I felt a little spooked about the fact that the comic book started with the burning on the stake by a heretic. I asked myself is it a coincidence that I am reading this book on my way to Cotabato City where Christian and Muslim tensions have been well documented? It must be my mind creating thoughts, thoughts turning into words, the words turning to reality, and then back again. I remembered Manny O. who used to teach a subject in the Ateneo about religious conflict in the world. Manny reminds me of an old John Lennon song. Lennon could be right, you know? If you can imagine a society with no religion, there would be peace. Well, dogs have no religion.

Just when we were descending, the Mindanao western coastline showed itself to me in all its glorious splendor. The greenery is magnificent. I could see long stretches of forest lands coupled with a few patches of houses here and there. The land mass is way too large compared with the Visayan islands. It's hard to believe that this place that looks so peaceful from above has a violent reputation.

"Ayan dumating na tayo!" a delighted voice from behind me cheered. We've landed in Cotabato City.

(To be continued)

Demystifying the 2010 Automated Elections Problems, Prospects and Some Answers

SPEAKERS:

ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES
(Election Lawyer)

DEAN RUDYARD A. AVILA III
(Professor, Election Law, U.P. College of Law; Election Law Practitioner; Consultant, House of Representatives)

MR. RAMON “IKE” SENERES
(Former President, National Computer Center; Expert on Election Technology)

ATTY. PATRICK VELEZ, MNSA
(Election Law Practitioner; Consultant, COMELEC; Partner, Soriano & Velez Law Office; Author, MNSA Thesis on The 2008 ARMM Automated Elections)

October 24, 2009
8:30 am to 5:00 pm
Function Rooms D & E
Quezon City Sports Club
E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave., Quezon City


For registration, please contact:
Jen/Cecil at APVLAW – 584-5685/5683
http://seminars.apvlaw.net




DEMYSTIFYING the 2010 AUTOMATED ELECTIONS
Problems, Prospects and Some Answers

PROGRAM

MORNING

8:30 REGISTRATION

9:00 – 10:30 ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES
Changes in Election Law under the Automated Election System & PCOS: From Canvassing up to the Filing of Election Protests

10:30 – 12:30 DEAN RUDYARD A. AVILA III
Survey of Election Law Jurisprudence 2007-2009: Focus on Effects brought by the Automated Elections (PCOS)

NOON

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

AFTERNOON

1:30 – 3:30 MR. RAMON “IKE” SENERES
Technology and Lawyers: Preparing for the Automated Elections, Understanding PCOS Technology and its Implications in Election Law

3:30 – 5:00 ATTY. PATRICK VELEZ, MNSA
Election Security and Technology for 2010

Techne as Strategy

Wikipedia defines techne, or techné, as distinguished from episteme, as

"etymologically derived from the Greek word τέχνη (Ancient Greek: IPA: [tékʰnεː], Modern Greek [ˈtexni] (help·info)) which is often translated as craftsmanship, craft, or art. It is the rational method involved in producing an object or accomplishing a goal or objective. The means of this method is through art. Techne resembles episteme in the implication of knowledge of principles, although techne differs in that its intent is making or doing, as opposed to "disinterested understanding."

I've often told my associates that getting things done means not just getting things done, but also getting things done in style. In the legal profession, legal work is more about method and form. Substance is something lawyers do not have enough control of; a witness can only testify on what he sees, which is a given. But, how that witness unravels his story is the stuff good lawyers are made of. Any person can draft a contract, but only lawyers can make a good contract, one that closes all loose openings where future law suits can germinate. It's all about style, form, and method.

Yet, style, form and method are not overnight creations. In a law office, style, form and method are products of experience. Law school simply does not provide these tools because it is an environment were beating the exams is the only game. Style, form and method are not measurable and nobody gets extra credit for them, except in real life.

The word techne loops it all in. It is the method of working while learning, and a learning that works. Work/Learn. Learn/Work. It never ends. It raises the bar of greatness for all time.

(To be continued)