COMELEC
vs.
HON. TOMAS B. NOYNAY, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar, and DIOSDADA F. AMOR, ESBEL CHUA,
and RUBEN MAGLUYOAN
G.R. No. 132365
July 9, 1998
DAVIDE, JR., J.
FACTS:
COMELEC filed a case against herein private respondents for the violation
of Omnibus Election Code when they engaged in partisan political activities.
However, on 25 August 1997, respondent Judge Tomas B. Noynay, motu
proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the
COMELEC Law Department to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial
Court on the ground that pursuant to Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
R.A. No. 7691, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum
imposable penalty in each of the case does not exceed six (6) years of
imprisonment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
election offenses.
RULING:
Yes, as provided in Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, the
Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide offenses in
violation of the said Code. The Court cited the case of Morales vs. Court of
Appeals stating that “that by virtue of the exception provided for in the opening
sentence of Section 32, the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not cover
those criminal cases which by specific provisions of law fall within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, regardless
of the penalty prescribed therefor.” Therefore, the RTC remains to have the
jurisdiction over election offenses regardless of its punishment, except those
relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.
Insular Life Employees Co.
vs.
Insular Life Association
G.R. No. L-25291
January 30, 1971
Castro, J.
FACTS:
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association - NATU, FGU
Insurance Group Workers and Employees Association - NATU, and Insular Life
Building Employees Association – NATU entered into separate collective
bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the FGU
Insurance. Enaje and Garcia, two of the lawyers of the Unions then, soon left the
FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of
Justice after failing to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating
with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). The
Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies for a modified renewal of
their respective collective bargaining contracts on September 16, 1957 which
were then due to expire on September 30, 1957. On October 1, 1957, the parties
mutually agreed and to make whatever benefits could be agreed upon
retroactively effective. Negotiations were conducted from September 1957 until
May 6, 1958 but due to no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of
salary increase, the Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they
considered the Companies' unfair labor practices.
On May 20, 1958 the Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the
Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga. On May 21, 1958 the Companies through
sent each of the strikers a letter stating their conditions if the employees will
come back to work. On the same day, some representatives of the Companies
tried to penetrate the picket lines which resulted to injuries of both the members
of the strikers and non-strikers. Alleging that some non-strikers were injured, the
Companies then filed criminal charges against the strikers with the City Fiscal's
Office of Manila. On May 31, 1958 an order was released restraining the strikers
from conducting their strike. On the same day, again, the Companies sent each
striker a letter telling them that they can still come back to work until June 2,
1958 should they decide to do so. Out of more than 120 criminal charges filed
against the members of the Unions, only three (3) cases were accepted which
are only cases of "slight physical injuries" against one striker and "light coercion"
against two others. Some of the strikers decided to go back to work, however,
some of them were not readmitted because of the required screening process
and failure to secure clearances from the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila.
On July 29, 1958 the CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice against the Companies under Republic Act 875. The complaint
specifically charged the Companies with interfering with the members of the
Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action and discriminating
against the members of the Unions as regards readmission to work after the
strike on the basis of their union membership and degree of participation in the
strike.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice.
RULING:
Yes, the Companies are guilty because it is an unfair labor practice for an
employer operating under a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate or to
attempt to negotiate with his employees individually in connection with changes
in the agreement. The actions showed by the Companies tend to undermine the
concerted activity of the employees, an activity to which they are entitled free
from the employer's molestation. Also, it has been held that the discrimination of
the active strikers from the picket lines was an unfair labor practice when these
strikers were denied from readmission to work. The evidences showed that the
process of the Companies rehiring is not fair. Indeed, the facts of the case at bar
manifested unfair labor practice by bribing the strikers during an ongoing
collective bargaining agreement and discriminating the strikers from readmission
to work.
Adez Realty, Inc.
vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100643
August 14, 1992
Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
On November 20, 1984, the accused-appellant released an order allowing
the reconstitution of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12662. On
December 28, 1990, the petitioner sought to annul the said order before the
Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for lack of merit. The CA ruled that
since no motion for reconsideration or appeal by certiorari with the Supreme
Court was filed, the same became final and executory, and consequently entered
in the judgment book on October 11, 1990.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Adez Realty, Inc. can still appeal for the annulment the
order allowing the reconstitution of the TCT No. 12662.
RULING:
No, the petitioner cannot appeal to annul the said order because the
judgment has become final upon when they failed to interpose an appeal or
motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court said that “it is settled
jurisprudence that once a decision becomes final, the Court can no longer
amend, modify, much less set aside the same.” Therefore the decision of the CA
in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 had attained finality.
CONCORDIA B. GARCIA, complainant
vs.
ATTY. CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO, respondent
A.C. No. 3923
March 30, 1993
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
On October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the disbarment of Atty.
Crisanto L. Francisco. On March 9, 1964, Concordia and her husband Godofredo,
the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leashed a parcel of
land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964.
However, Lee refused to vacate after the expiration of the lease despite repeated
verbal and written demands. Lee claimed that he had an option to extend the
lease for another 5 years and the right of pre-emption over the property.
Thereafter, Lee's counsel, Francisco, commenced various suits before
different courts to thwart Garcia's right to regain her. On the other hand, Garcia’s
group answered the cases filed against them and also filed cases against Lee and
his counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Crisanto Francisco has violated his oath as a lawyer, in
representing his client.
RULING:
Yes, Francisco was found to have violated his oath not to delay any man
for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession
and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of
the Court. The Court held that the respondent was aware that the cause of his
client was without merit yet continuously sought for relief that was consistently
denied, as he should have expected. Also, by violating his oath, he has
besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself
unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. For these
reasons, the Supreme Court suspended Francisco for one (1) year from the
practice of law and from the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges
appurtenant to membership in the Philippine bar.
