Category Archives: Litigation

Preliminary Investigation in Criminal Cases

27 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

At the outset, let’s remove any possibility of misunderstanding that may be caused by the title of this post. The reference to a “preliminary investigation in criminal cases” does not imply that there’s a preliminary investigation in civil cases – there’s none. Preliminary investigation is a part of the rules of criminal procedure. Simply stated, it’s available ONLY in criminal cases.

What is Preliminary Investigation?

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Continue reading →

Credit cards and unfair collection practices

22 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

There are a number of good reasons in favor of having and using a credit card. Still, we all know the possible adverse results in the unchecked use of “plastics” or credit cards, such as this one:

THERE’S a credit-card horror story that’s become some sort of an urban legend: A television personality, after losing his job in a top network, resorts to using his plastic money. By the time he finds employment in the rival network, he has wracked up P58,000 in credit card bills. But he figures he’s not yet ready to pay in full, so he pays just the minimum amount due. Yet after five years, he is shocked to realize that his credit card debt had ballooned more than 10 times to P700,000.

Perhaps you’ve heard, or, most probably, experienced certain “innovative” strategies used by credit card companies and their collection agencies in “persuading” you to pay (they are, of course, entitled to payment). With the rising complaints against these strategies, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued a set of rules and regulations governing the credit card operations of banks and affiliate credit card companies. Continue reading →

Additional Rules on Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) on Foreclosures of Real Estate Mortgage

3 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

The Supreme Court has issued additional guidelines on the issuance of temporary restraining orders or writs of preliminary injunctions enjoining foreclosures of real estate mortgages. The additional rules will take effect on March 10, 2007.

Here’s the full text of AM No. 99-10-05-O (Re: Procedure in Extrajudicial Or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages, dated February 20, 2007): Continue reading →

The By-Stander Rule: The Role of the Company in Certification Elections

2 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

A certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where they are working. It is the appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the employees themselves.

The usual issue is the right of the employer-corporation in the process.

According to the Supreme Court, the employer’s role in a certification election is that of a mere by-stander, as the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The employer has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the orders related thereto. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not be considered parties with the concomitant right to oppose it. Otherwise stated, the employer has no “material interest to assail the certification election” and cannot be considered a party with an “inalienable right to oppose it”. Continue reading →

Indigent or Pauper Litigant: Rules in Determining Status

7 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty
knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.
–  James Baldwin

This is the opening phrase of a recent decision penned by Justice Velasco involving the rules on indigent parties, summarized as follows:

The rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the “indigency test” under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.

Continue reading →

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997

12 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

The Subic Rape Case again puts the spotlight on the crime of rape. As comments on the merits of the case are not allowed, let’s just discuss the crime of rape.

Rape is governed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which was amended on 22 October 1997 by Republic Act No. 8353, also known as the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997”. Among the innovations under R.A. 8353 are the following: Continue reading →

Habeas corpus

6 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

The Presidential Commission on Good Goverment (PCGG) yesterday filed a petition for habeas corpus to compel the Senate to present Camilo Sabio, PCGG Chairman, before the Supreme Court and to justify his arrest and detention that was ordered by the Senate in connection with its on-going inquiry in aid of legislation. You probably read about the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante against U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other ranking US government officials in order to gain freedom in the United States.The term “writ of habeas corpus” had surfaced many times before. Let’s discuss this subject matter.

Continue reading →

Cases after the death of Death Penalty

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

We previously wrote that on 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ‘An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines‘. Let’s examine the Supreme Court decisions after the abolition of the Death Penalty.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon (G.R. 170236, 31 AUgust 2006) involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Continue reading →

Special Court could Oversee Anti-Terror Law

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

(This is written by Dean Jorge Bocobo at Philippine Commentary, reposted here with his permission. Also known as “Rizalist”, DJB is one of the respected writers around).

Anti-terrorism laws unavoidably entail some curtailment of the general public’s freedoms. But hardly anyone objects very strenuously even to draconian countermeasures when a credible threat is demonstrated, as in the case of a ban on carrying on-board commercial aircraft, components of liquid improvised explosives in the foiled London airliner bombing conspiracy. But last week, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel and Rep. Nereus Acosta, vice chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declared their intention to hold up, once more, the passage into Law of the long-debated Anti-Terrorism Bill because they say the authorities may use it against legitimate political and opposition leaders. On ABSCBN/ANC last night, Twink Macaraeg’s televised one-on-one debate between National Security Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor and the Secretary General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Renato Reyes, also revolved around the issue of how the defense of human and civil rights ought to be conducted while the international community fights a war on international terrorism. Although Neric Acosta seems comfortable endlessly debating “the definition of terrorism” as an irresolvable or inescapable rut, his, is really a cop-out position. Nene Pimentel touches on more substantive civil libertarian issues by invoking the ghost of martial laws past and the Marcosian legacy of officially denied salvagings, unexplained desaparecidos … and other human rights atrocities of the recent past. The concerns of both legislators are serious, but can, and have already been amply addressed during the debates over the anti-terror bill. I might only add the following thoughts:

Continue reading →