Digested Crime

Republic of the Philippines
CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES, INC

COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia Iriga City
Maguindanao Massacre (2009):

Facts:
On November 23, 2009, 58 people, including 32 journalists, were brutally killed in
Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province, Philippines. The victims were part of a
convoy that was heading to file the candidacy papers of Esmael Mangudadatu, who
was running for governor. The convoy was ambushed and the victims were shot,
stabbed, and buried in mass graves.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was the involvement of powerful political clans in the
region, particularly the Ampatuan family, who were accused of orchestrating the
massacre. The case highlighted the culture of impunity and political violence in the
Philippines.
Head:
"Maguindanao Massacre: 58 Killed in Brutal Ambush, Ampatuan Clan Implicated"
Vizconde Massacre (1991):

Facts:
On June 30, 1991, the Vizconde family was brutally murdered in their home in
Parañaque City. Estrellita Vizconde, her two daughters, Carmela and Jennifer, and
their housemaid, were found dead. The daughters were raped and stabbed multiple
times.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was the identification and conviction of the perpetrators.
The case gained significant media attention and public outrage due to the heinous
nature of the crime and the perceived mishandling of the investigation.
Head:
"Vizconde Massacre: Family Brutally Murdered, Search for Justice Intensifies"
Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez Case (1993):
Facts:
In 1993, Eileen Sarmenta, a college student, was abducted, raped, and murdered
by members of the Philippine Constabulary, including Lieutenant Colonel Rolando
Abadilla. Allan Gomez, a fellow student who tried to help Sarmenta, was also killed.
The case involved the controversial Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the
Philippines and the United States.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was the abuse of power by law enforcement officials and
the implications of the VFA. The case sparked public outrage and led to discussions
about the presence of U.S. military personnel in the Philippines.
Head:
"Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez Case: Students Abducted and Murdered, VFA
Under Scrutiny"
Chiong Sisters Case (1997):
Facts:
In 1997, Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, two sisters, were abducted while waiting for
a ride home in Cebu City. They were later found dead, and their bodies showed
signs of rape and torture. The case gained significant media attention and public
interest.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was the identification and conviction of the perpetrators.
The trial and subsequent appeals received extensive media coverage and sparked
debates about the effectiveness of the justice system in the Philippines.
Head: "Chiong Sisters Case: Abduction and Brutal Murder of Sisters Shocks the
Nation"
Dacer-Corbito Double Murder Case (2000):

Facts:
In 2000, publicist Salvador "Bubby" Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were
abducted and killed in Manila. The case involved high-profile individuals, including
former police officer Michael Ray Aquino and Senator Panfilo Lacson.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was the alleged involvement of influential individuals in
the crime and the subsequent cover-up. The case received significant media
attention and raised questions about corruption and abuse of power within the
Philippine government.
Head:
"Dacer-Corbito Double Murder Case: High-Profile Figures Implicated in Shocking
Crime"
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee, -versus- RODOLFO

ADVINCULA y MONDANO, accused-appellant. GR No. 218108, THIRD
DIVISION,
April 11, 2018, MARTIRES, J.
There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused without warning, as
when the accused attacks the victim from behind, or when the attack is sudden and
unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim or is, in
any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself,
thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant. -In the
present case, Reggie has no chance to defend himself because the accused-
appellant surreptitiously sneaked behind him and gave him a headlock which
restrained his movement.
FACTS:
On August 4, 2005, Rollane, Reggie, and Joseph were at a store talking when
suddenly, the accused appellant sneaked from Reggie’s back, grabbed Reggie’s
neck, and drove a knife at Reggie’s side. Reggie was able to push away the
accused-appellant causing both of them to fall down. Reggie was able to ran away,
however, the accused-appellant caught up with him when he stumbled. Thereafter,
the accused-appellant stabbed him twice in his chest while he was in a supine
position. Reggie was brought to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on
arrival. The accused-appellant, on his part, contended that he acted in defense of a
relative. He claimed that he was at home on August 4, 2005, when Reggie, armed
with a kitchen knife, entered the living room and threatened to stab the accused-
appellant’s two siblings. He argued that the safety of his siblings were compromised
because the threat to harm them was a positive strong act of real danger considering
that Reggie has already entered his house. The RTC convicted the accused-
appellant of murder. The RTC ruled that treachery and evident premeditation
attended the killing of Reggie. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision
of the lower court and held that the circumstance of evident premeditation was
absent in the case. However, the Court of Appeals maintained the finding of the RTC
convicting the accused-appellant for murder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery was present (YES)RULING:
For the crime of murder to be present, the following elements must be present:(1)
that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC;
and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide in this case, treachery attended
the killing of Reggie. There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused
without warning, as when the accused attacks the victim from behind, or when the
attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of
the victim or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to
defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the
assailant. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be
present -1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. Reggie has no chance to
defend himself because the accused-appellant surreptitiously sneaked behind him
and gave him a headlock which restrained his movement. Reggie tried to escape
from the accused-appellant, however, he failed because when he stumbled, the latter
was able to catch up with him. Reggie, who was then bleeding, was no longer able to
protect himself from further stabbing by the accused-appellant
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, -versus- MANUEL CORPUZ,

accusedappellant.GR No. 215320, THIRD DIVISION,
February 28, 2018, MARTIRES, J.
An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless
woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to
defend herself. There is also abuse of such superiority when the victim is old and
weak, while the accused is stronger because of his relatively younger age. Here, the
two victims were defenseless old women – Romana at 74 years old, and Leonila at
65 years old. In-contrast, Manuel was armed with a deadly weapon. Further, at the
time of the incident, Manuel was around 36 years old, in the prime of his years.
FACTS:
Manuel Corpuz was charged with two counts of murder for killing Romana Arcular
and Leonila Risto, aged 74 and 65 respectively at the time of their death. Witness
Leonilo Bongalan stated that he went to the farm to check on Leonila, his mother-in-
law. Upon reaching the farm, he saw Manuel hacking Leonila and Romana with a
bolo. On that same day, two other witnesses saw Manuel on the trail, half-naked and
holding a bolo. They noted that he came from the direction of the place where the
incident happened. Manuel interposed the defense of alibi and denial which was
corroborated by his wife. The lower courts ruled that the killing was attended by the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abuse of superior strength attended the commission of murder.
(YES)
RULING:
The Court has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon
upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of
that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself. There is also abuse of such
superiority when the victim is old and weak, while the accused is stronger because of
his relatively younger age.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO JAPAG and

ALVIN LIPORADA, accused, DANILO JAPAG, accused-appellant .G.R. No.
223155,
July 23, 2018, FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J
The most important requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the

condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
Unlawful aggression "contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The
person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with
actual use of [a] weapon. After a thorough review of the records, The Court finds that
appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the unlawful aggression had
originated from the victim. First, it is undisputed that appellant boarded a motorcycle
and fled the situs creminis immediately after stabbing the victim at the back. "Flight is
a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense. Second, the location,
nature and seriousness of the wound sustained by the victim is inconsistent with self-
defense; rather, these factors indicate a determined effort to kill.
FACTS:
On March 16, 2009, at around 3:00 p.m., Ramil Parrocho (Ramil), the victim's twin
brother, was at a sari-sari store in front of Gregorio Catenza National High School
when he saw appellant Japag, Liporada, and Macalalag blocking the way of the
victim who was then about to the enter the school gate. Ramil thereafter saw
Liporada punch his brother at the left cheek while being held in place by Macalalag.
Suddenly, appellant, who was positioned behind the victim, drew a bladed weapon
from his pocket and stabbed the latter at the back. Upon receiving the stabbing blow,
the victim fell on the ground. The attack on the victim was so unexpected that Ramil
and even the security guards at the school outposts were not able to come to his
rescue. Appellant, Liporada and Macalalag immediately fled towards the direction of
the highway. The victim was rushed to the EVRMC Hospital in Tacloban City, but he
was pronounced dead on arrival. Appellant raised the justifying circumstance of self-
defense in order to exculpate himself from criminal liability. RTC found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. CA affirmed the assailed RTC
Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether appellant was able to sufficiently prove the justifying circumstance of self
defense (NO)
Whether the victim's stabbing was attended by treachery (YES)
RULING:
It is settled that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted
from the prosecution to the defense, and it becomes incumbent upon the accused to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of the following requisites of
self-defense: first, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; second, reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and third, lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The most
important requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine
qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Unlawful aggression
"contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger
thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending
himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of [a]
weapon. "After a thorough review of the records, The Court finds that appellant failed
to discharge the burden of proving that the unlawful aggression had originated from
the victim. First, it is undisputed that appellant boarded a motorcycle and fled the
situs creminis immediately after stabbing the victim at the back. "Flight is a veritable
badge of guilt and negates the plea of self defense Second, the location, nature and
seriousness of the wound sustained by the victim is inconsistent with self-defense;
rather, these factors indicate a determined effort to kill. Third, both the RTC and the
CA found the testimony of Ramil (the victim's twin brother) to be clear and convincing
in its vital points, i.e., on his detailed narration of the stabbing incident and his
positive identification of appellant as one of his brother's assailants. There is
treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the execution of
any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. In this case, the records clearly show that the victim's killing was
attended by treachery, considering that: (a) the victim was fatally stabbed by
appellant from behind immediately after receiving a punch in the face from Liporada;
(b) the victim was held in place by Macalalag when the stabbing blow was delivered
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- RODOLFO

OLARBE y BALIHANGO, Accused-Appellant.G.R. No. 227421, THIRD DIVISION,
July 23, 2018, BERSAMIN,J.
For a person to exonerate himself on the ground of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code, he must establish the following facts: (1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. Olarbe also invoked the justifying circumstance of defense
of a stranger. In both of these circumstances, the indispensable requisite for either is
unlawful aggression mounted by the victim against the accused or the stranger.
Contrary to the ruling of the trial court and appellate court, all elements of self-
defense is present in this case. There is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
as proven by the following facts. The Supreme Court finds that Arca committed
continuous and persistent unlawful aggression against Olarbe and his common-law
spouse that lasted from the moment he forcibly barged into the house and
brandished his gun until he assaulted Olarbe’s common-law spouse with a bolo.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed is still present even if Arca sustained
several wounds.
FACTS:
On the night of the incident, Rodolfo Olarbe (Olarbe) and his wife were sleeping in
their house in Luisiana, Laguna. Suddenly, they were awakened by the sound of a
gunshot and shouting from Romeo Arca (Arca) who appeared to be drunk. He was
holding a rifle when he entered the house and aimed the gun at them. Olarbe
immediately grabbed the gun from him and they grappled for its possession. Olarbe
managed to wrest the gun away from Arca. In the midst of the confusion, Olarbe was
able to shoot Arca causing the latter to lean sidewards. Nevertheless, Arca managed
to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them. Olarbe grabbed the bolo
and successfully acquired the bolo by struggling for its possession. He instantly
hacked Arca causing his death. After the incident, accused voluntarily surrendered to
the police authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it was erroneous to reject Olarbe’s pleas of self-defense and defense
of stranger (YES)
RULING:
For a person to exonerate himself on the ground of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code, he must establish the following facts: (1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. Olarbe also invoked the justifying circumstance of defense
of a stranger. In both of these circumstances, the indispensable requisite for either is
unlawful aggression mounted by the victim against the accused or the stranger.
Without such unlawful aggression, the accused is not entitled to the justifying
circumstance. Contrary to the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the
rejection of Olarbe’s plea was unwarranted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- GENERALDO M.

CONDINO, Accused Appellant.G.R. No. 219591, FIRST DIVISION,
February 19, 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.
There is treachery when the offender employs mean, methods or forms in the
execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. In this case, the attack was attended by treachery,
considering that: a) the means of execution of the attack gave the victim no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and b) said means of execution was
deliberately adopted by appellant.
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with the crime of murder. According to the prosecution,
appellant appeared before the Lupon Tagapamayapa at the Barangay Hall of
Barangay Lanao, Daanbantayan, Cebu, in a hearing for the alleged destruction of a
plastic chair owned by the barangay. Also present during the hearing was the victim,
Isabelo D. Arrabis (Arrabis), who was then the first councilor of the barangay.
After the hearing, the victim, together with other barangay officials went out of
the hall and sat down on a nearby bamboo bench for a chat. While they were talking,
appellant, who was just outside the gate of the Barangay Hall, calmly walked toward
the group, and with his left hand, grabbed the victim's neck from behind and stabbed
the latter three to four times using a yellowish pointed metal, hitting a portion just
below the victim's left breast. The victim was taken to the Daanbantayan District
Hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival. On the other hand, the defense
presented appellant as its lone witness who claimed self-defense. -The RTC found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
considering that "the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete
with inconsistencies and contradictions in material points directly going to their
perception and recollection of the stabbing incident." (YES)
2. Whether the victim's stabbing was attended by treachery. (YES)
RULING:
In resolving issues involving the credibility of witnesses, the Court adheres to the
well-settled rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment
made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling
examination." Thus, in Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that
inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the
veracity of the testimony if inconsistencies do not pertain to material points. In this
case, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses
pertained to minor details and collateral matters which did not affect the substance of
their declarations and the veracity of their statements. As for the issue on the
presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court agrees with the CA's
conclusion that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered
defenseless and unable to retaliate." There is treachery when the offender employs
means, methods or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that
tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.
Case Digest: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC. v. Lluz et al.

G.R. No. 208451
February 03, 2016
CARPIO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (Manila Memorial) entered into a
Contract of Services with respondent Ward Trading and Services (Ward Trading).
The Contract of Services provided that Ward Trading, as an independent contractor,
will render interment and exhumation services and other related work to Manila
Memorial in order to supplement operations at Manila Memorial Park, Paranaque
City. Among those assigned by Ward Trading to perform services at the Manila
Memorial Park were respondents Ezard Lluz, Norman Corral, Erwm Fugaban,
Valdimar Balisi, Emilio Fabon, John Mark Aplicador, Michael Curioso, Junlin
Espares, and Gavino Farinas (respondents). Respondents alleged that soon after
the management declined their request for regularization and to be recognized as
legitimate members of the existing labor union,the latter dismissed them. Hence, this
case for illegal dismissal. By way of defense, Manila Memorial argued that there was
no employer-employee relationship between the company and respondents. Instead,
It argued that respondents were the employees of Ward Trading.
Issue:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between Manila Memorial
and respondents for the latter to be entitled to their claim for wages and other
benefits.
Ruling:
Contracting arrangements for the performance of specific jobs or services under the
law and its implementing rules are allowed. However, contracting must be made to a
legitimate and independent job contractor since labor rules expressly prohibit labor-
only contracting.
Herma Shipyard, Inc. vs. Danilo Olivares et al.

G.R. No. 208936
17 Apr 2017
Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
Herma Shipyard is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of shipbuilding
and repair. The respondents were its employees occupying various positions such as
welder, leadman, pipe fitter, laborer, helper, etc.
On June 17, 2009, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
regularization, and non-payment of service incentive leave pay with prayer for the
payment of full backwages and attorney's fees against petitioners. Respondents
alleged that they are Herma Shipyard's regular employees who have been
continuously performing tasks usually necessary and desirable in its business. On
various dates, however, petitioners dismissed them from employment.
Issue
Whether or not respondents who are project employees have become regular
employees as a result of their repeated hiring by the petitioner for various projects.
Ruling:
The Court held in the negative
Ernesto Brown vs. Marswan Marketing, Inc. et al.

G.R. No. 206891
15 Mar 2017
Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary
and 13th month pay as well as claim for moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees against Marswin Marketing, Inc. Marswin) and Sany Tan (Tan), its
owner and President. He prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and payment
of his other monetary claims. He alleged that on October 5, 2009, Marswin employed
petitioner as building maintenance/ electrician and was tasked to maintain its
sanitation and make necessary electrical repairs thereon. Furthermore, that on May
28, 20l0, he reported at the Main Office of Marswin, and was told that it was already
his last day of work. Allegedly, he was made to sign a document that he did not
understand; and, thereafter he was no longer admitted back to work. Thus, he
insisted that he was terminated without due process of law.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in declaring that the company did not illegally dismiss the
petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes, Brown was illegally dismissed by the company
Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia et al.

G.R. No. 197899
06 Mar 2017
Peralta, J.
Facts:
Respondents were hired from January 20, 1994 to March 20, 1996 as crew
members of the fishing mother boat F/B MG-28 owned by respondent Joaquin
"Jake" Lu (herein petitioner Lu) who is the sole proprietor of Mommy Gina Tuna
Resources [MGTR] based in General Santos City. Petitioners and Lu had an income-
sharing arrangement wherein 55% goes to Lu, 45% to the crew members, with an
additional 4% as "backing incentive." They also equally share the expenses for the
maintenance and repair of the mother boat, and for the purchase of nets, ropes and
payaos.
Issue
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Lu
and respondents, Enopia et al.
Ruling:
Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship.
SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG,

Petitioners, v. TEODORA F. CA
G.R. No. 211411
March 16, 2016
REYES, J.:
Facts:
The case stems from a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed by
Teodora F. Campo (respondent) against the petitioners. Respondent worked for
STWC as a weaving machine operator beginning June 11, 1999, until she was
unlawfully dismissed from employment on November 21, 2010. Prior to her
dismissal, she was suspended for one week beginning November 14, 2010 after a
stitching machine that she was operating overheated and emitted smoke on
November 13, 2010. When the respondent tried to report back to work on November
21, 2010, she was denied entry by the STWC's security guard, reportedly upon the
instructions of Arcenal.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent was constructively dismissed.
Ruling:
The Court held that respondent was illegally dismissed.
Maguindanao Massacre (2009):
Facts:
On November 23, 2009, 58 people, including 32 journalists, were brutally
killed in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao. The victims were part of a convoy
accompanying Esmael Mangudadatu, who planned to file his candidacy for the
provincial governorship.
Issue:
The massacre was politically motivated, highlighting the issue of political
violence and warlordism in the region.
Head:
The trial led to the conviction of several members of the powerful Ampatuan
political clan in December 2019. The verdict underscored the importance of justice
and accountability.
Vizconde Massacre (1991):
Facts:
On June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her two daughters were brutally
murdered in their residence in Parañaque. Hubert Webb, son of former senator
Freddie Webb, and several others were implicated.
Issue:
The case gained national attention due to the involvement of a prominent
family and allegations of mishandling evidence by law enforcement.
Head:
In 2010, the Supreme Court acquitted Webb and others, citing the failure to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, raising concerns about the justice system.
Dacer-Corbito Double Murder (2000):
Facts:
Publicist Salvador Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were abducted
and murdered in November 2000. Former police senior superintendent Michael Ray
Aquino and businessman Dante Tan were implicated.
Issue:
The case revealed the potential involvement of high-ranking police officials in
extrajudicial killings and raised questions about corruption within the police force.
Head:
Aquino was convicted, but the case remains controversial with allegations of
political interference.
Kidapawan Massacre (2016):
Facts:
During a farmers' protest in Kidapawan City on April 1, 2016, clashes erupted
between the police and farmers demanding government assistance during a drought.
Several protesters were killed and injured.
Issue:
The incident raised concerns about the government's handling of socio-
economic issues, particularly in addressing the needs of vulnerable communities.
Head:
Investigations led to charges against some police officers, emphasizing the need for
accountability in handling public protests.
Subic Rape Case (2006):
Facts:
In 2006, a Filipina accused four U.S. Marines of raping her in Subic Bay. The
incident sparked widespread protests and debates about the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States.
Issue:
The case highlighted issues of jurisdiction and the treatment of cases
involving foreign military personnel stationed in the Philippines.
Head:
Lance Corporal Daniel Smith was initially convicted but later acquitted in
2009, leading to discussions about the impact of the VFA on the Philippine legal
system.
Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Allan Lapastora and Irene Ubalubao

G.R. No. 187691
January 13, 2016
REYES, J.:
Facts:
A complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of back wages and other benefits, and
regularization of employment filed by Allan Lapastora (Lapastora) and Irene
Ubalubao (Ubalubao) against Olympic Housing, Inc. (OHI), the entity engaged in the
management of the Olympia Executive Residences (OER), a condominium hotel
building situated in Makati City. Lapastora and Ubalubao alleged that they worked as
room attendants of OHI from March 1995 and June 1997, respectively, until they
were placed on floating status on February 24, 2000, through a memorandum sent
by Fast Manpower. Chando bless virtual law library to establish employer-employee
relationship with OHI, Lapastora and Ubalubao alleged that they were directly hired
by the company and received salaries directly from it. They also claimed that OHI
exercised control over them as they were issued time cards, disciplinary action
reports and checklists of room assignments. It was also OHI which terminated their
employment after they petitioned for regularization. Prior to their dismissal, they were
subjected to investigations for their alleged involvement in the theft of personal items
and cash belonging to hotel guests and were summarily dismissed by OHI despite
lack of evidence. Chan robles virtual law library or their part, OHI and Limcaoco
alleged that Lapastora and Ubalubao were not employees of the company but of
Fast Manpower, an independent contractor with which it had a contract of services,
particularly, for the provision of room attendants. Reinforcing OHI's claims, Fast
Manpower reiterated that it is a legitimate manpower agency and that it had a valid
contract of services with OHI, pursuant to which Lapastora and Ubalubao were
deployed as room attendants. Lapastora and Ubalubao were, however, found to
have violated house rules and regulations and were reprimanded accordingly. It
denied the employees' claim that they were dismissed and maintained they were
only placed on floating status for lack of available work assignments. During the
pendency of the case, Ubalubao, on her own behalf, filed a Motion to
Dismiss/Withdraw Complaint and Waiver.
Issue:
Whether or not Lapastora was illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
The court ruled in the affirmative.
Indisputably, Lapastora was a regular employee of OHI. As found by the LA, he has
been under the continuous employ of OHI since March 3, 1995 until he was placed
on floating status in February 2000. His uninterrupted employment by OHI, lasting for
more than a year, manifests the continuing need and desirability of his services,
which characterize regular employment.
By the nature of its petitioner’s business, it is necessary that it maintains a pool of
housekeeping staff to ensure that the premises remain an uncluttered place of
comfort for the occupants. It is no wonder why Lapastora, among several others,
was continuously employed by OHI precisely because of the indispensability of their
services to its business. The argument that formal notices of investigation were not
complied with since he was not an employee of OHI but of Fast Manpower does not
hold because Lapastora was under the effective control and supervision of OHI
through the company supervisor. She gave credence to the pertinent records of
Lapastora's employment, i.e., timecards, medical records and medical examinations,
which all indicated OHI as his employer. That there is an existing contract of services
between OHI and Fast Manpower where both parties acknowledged the latter as the
employer of the housekeeping staff, including Lapastora, did not alter established
facts proving the contrary. To justify fully the dismissal of a regular employee, the
employer must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just cause and that the
employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal. As a complementary
principle, the employer has the burden of proving with clear, accurate, consistent,
and convincing evidence the validity of the dismissal. It appears that OHI failed to
prove that Lapastora's dismissal was grounded on a just or authorized cause. While
it claims that it had called Lapastora's attention several times for his infractions, it
does not appear from the records that the latter had been notified of the company's
dissatisfaction over his performance and that he was not given an opportunity to
explain. In the same manner, allegations regarding Lapastora's involvement in the
theft of personal items and cash belonging to hotel guests remained unfounded
suspicions as they were not proven despite OHI's probe into the incidents. In the
present case, Lapastora was not informed of the charges against him and was
denied the opportunity to disprove the same. He was summarily terminated from
employment.
Diamond Farms, Inc. v. SPFL et al.

G.R. Nos. 173254-55 & 173263
January 13, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.:
Facts:
DFI owns an 800-hectare banana plantation ("original plantation") in Alejal, Carmen,
Davao. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988 ("CARL"), commercial farms shall be subject to compulsory acquisition
and distribution, thus the original plantation was covered by the law. DFI offered to
give up its rights and interest over the original plantation in favor of the government
by way of a Voluntary Offer to Sell. The DAR accepted DFI's offer to sell the original
plantation. Out of the total 800 hectares, the DAR only approved the disposition of
689.88 hectares. The awarded plantation was turned over to qualified agrarian
reform beneficiaries ("ARBs") under the CARL. These ARBs are the same farmers
who were working in the original plantation. They subsequently organized
themselves into a multi-purpose cooperative named "DARBMUPCO," which is one of
the respondents in this case. DARBMUPCO entered into a Banana Production and
Purchase Agreement ("BPPA") with DFI. Under the BPPA, DARBMUPCO and its
members as owners of the awarded plantation, agreed to grow and cultivate only
high grade quality exportable bananas to be sold exclusively to DPI. The BPPA is
effective for 10 years.18 Hampered by lack of manpower to undertake the
agricultural operation under the BPPA, DFI engaged the services of the respondent-
contractors, who in turn recruited the respondent-workers to assist DARBMUPCO in
meeting its production obligations under the BPPA, Southern Philippines Federation
of Labor ("SPFL")—a legitimate labor organization with a local chapter in the
awarded plantation filed a petition for certification election in the Office of the Med-
Arbiter on behalf of some 400 workers (the respondent-workers in this petition)
"jointly employed by DFI and DARBMUPCO" working in the awarded plantation. In
another case, SPFL, together with more than 300 workers, filed a case for
underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave
pay and attorney's fees against DFI, DARBMUPCO and the respondent-contractors
before the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"). DARBMUPCO and DFI
denied that they are the employers of the respondent-workers. They claimed,
instead, that the respondent-workers are the employees of the respondent-
contractors.
Issue:
Who among DFI, DARBMUPCO and the respondent-contractors is the employer of
the respondent-workers?
Ruling:
Petition is denied. Furthermore, the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring DFI to
be the employer of respondent-workers is affirmed. This case involves job
contracting, a labor arrangement expressly allowed by law. Contracting or
subcontracting is an arrangement whereby a principal (or employer) agrees to put
out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a
specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of
whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside
the premises of the principal. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
distinguishes between permissible job contracting (or independent contractorship)
and labor-only contracting. Job contracting is permissible under the Code if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract
work on his own account under his own responsibility according to his own manner
and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all
matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof;
and
(2) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in
the conduct of his business.
In contrast, job contracting shall be deemed as labor-only contracting, an
arrangement prohibited by law, if a person who undertakes to supply workers to an
employer:
(1) Does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises and other materials; and
(2) The workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which
are directly related to the principal business or operations of the employer in which
workers are habitually employed.
Based on the conditions for permissible job contracting, we rule that respondent-
contractors are labor only contractors. There is no evidence showing that
respondent-contractors are independent contractors. The respondent-contractors,
DFI, and DARBMUPCO did not offer any proof that respondent-contractors were not
engaged in labor-only contracting.
Herein respondents, Voltaire Lopez, Jr., et al., were commissioned and contracted by
petitioner, Diamond Farms, Inc. (DFI) to recruit farm workers, who are the
complaining [respondent-workers] (as represented by
Jamias et al. v. NLRC

G.R. No. 159350
March 9, 2016
Bersamin, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), a domestic corporation engaged in
the business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired the
petitioners on various dates and under a project based contract for a period of one
year. After their respective contracts expired, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as
project employees in order to prevent them from becoming regular employees. The
petitioners maintain that they should be accorded regular status to the employees
because the work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of
data encoding, processing and conversion.
Issue:
Whether or not the contract of employment signed by the petitioners were invalid.
Ruling:
In holding that their contract of employment were valid, the Court reiterated that a
fixed period in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to
circumvent Article 280 of the Labor Code. A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must
strictly conform with the requirements and conditions provided in Article 280 of the
Labor Code. The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a
project or regular employee is whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the
time of his engagement. The fixed period of employment must be knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer
and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter. The fixing by
Innodata of the period specified in the contracts of employment according to the
duration of the projects the company were engaged to perform did not indicate any
ill-motive to circumvent the petitioners’ security of tenure. Furthermore, there is no
indication that the petitioners were made to sign the contracts against their will.
Hence, they knowingly agreed to the terms of and voluntarily signed their respective
contracts. Also, the necessity and desirability of the work performed by the
employees are not the determinants in term employment, but rather the "day certain"
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It would be unusual for a company like
Innodata to undertake a project that had no relationship to its usual business. In fine,
the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a
fixed term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract.
Jamias et al. v. NLRC

G.R. No. 159350
March 9, 2016
Bersamin, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), a domestic corporation engaged in
the business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired the
petitioners on various dates and under a project-based contract for a period of one
year. After their respective contracts expired, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as
project employees in order to prevent them from becoming regular employees. The
petitioners maintain that they should be accorded regular status to the employees
because the work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of
data encoding, processing and conversion.
Issue:
Whether or not the contract of employment signed by the petitioners were invalid.
Ruling:
In holding that their contract of employment were valid, the Court reiterated that a
fixed period in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to
circumvent Article 280 of the Labor Code. A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must
strictly conform with the requirements and conditions provided in Article 280 of the
Labor Code. The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a
project or regular employee is whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the
time of his engagement. The fixed period of employment must be knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer
and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter. The fixing by
Innodata of the period specified in the contracts of employment according to the
duration of the projects the company were engaged to perform did not indicate any
ill-motive to circumvent the petitioners’ security of tenure. Furthermore, there is no
indication that the petitioners were made to sign the contracts against their will.
Hence, they knowingly agreed to the terms of and voluntarily signed their respective
contracts. Also, the necessity and desirability of the work performed by the
employees are not the determinants in term employment, but rather the "day certain"
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It would be unusual for a company like
Innodata to undertake a project that had no relationship to its usual business. In fine,
the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a
fixed term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract
Case Digest: Flordeliza Llanes Grande vs. Philippine Nautical Training College
G.R. No. 213137
01 Mar 2017
Peralta, J.
Facts:
Respondent Philippine Nautical Training College, or PNTC, is a private entity
engaged in the business of providing maritime training and education. In 1988,
respondent employed petitioner as Instructor for medical courses like Elementary
First Aid and Medical Emergency. Shortly thereafter, she became the Course
Director of the Safety Department. Later in 2002, she was appointed Course Director
for the Training Department of respondent school. In November 2007, she resigned
as she had to pursue graduate studies and carry on her plan to immigrate to
Canada. However, in July 2009, petitioner was again employed by respondent as
Director for maritime Training upon the latter’s invitation. As such, she was
responsible for the development, revisions and execution of training programs. In
September 2010, petitioner was given the additional post of Assistant Vice-President
(VP) for Training Department. In February 2011, several employees of respondent's
Registration Department, including the VP for Training Department were placed
under preventive suspension in view of the anomalies in the enlistment of students.
On March 1, 2011, the VP for Corporate Affairs, Frederick Pios (Pios), called
petitioner for a meeting. Pios relayed to petitioner the message of PNTC's President,
Atty. Hernani Fabia, for her to tender her resignation from the school in view of the
discovery of anomalies in the Registration Department that reportedly involved her.
Pios assured petitioner of absolution from the alleged anomalies if she would resign.
Petitioner then prepared a resignation letter, signed it and filed it with the Office of
the PNTC President. The respondent accomplished for her the necessary exit
clearance. In the evening of the same date, petitioner, accompanied by counsel, filed
a police blotter for a complaint for unjust vexation against Pios. The next day, March
2, 2011, petitioner accompanied by counsel, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

with prayer for reinstatement with
Case Digest: JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P.

USON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198967
March 07, 2016
PERALTA, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Uson was an accounting supervisor in Royal Class Venture Phils., Inc.
(RCVPI) until Dec. 20, 2000 when he was allegedly dismissed by petitioner
Guillermo, the company’s president/general manager, for having exposed the latter’s
practice of dictating and undervaluing the shares of stocks of the corporation.
Thereafter he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the corporation, RCVPI.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Uson, ordering respondent to
reinstate him to his former position and pay his back wages, 13th month pay as well
as moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. RCVPI did not file an
appeal but repeated issuances of Writs of Execution against the same remained
unsatisfied. Uson filed another Motion for Alias Writ of Execution and to Hold
Directors and Officers of Respondent Liable for the Decision and quoted from the
sheriff’s return: a) that at RCVPI’s address (to which the writs are being served) there
is a new establishment named “ Joel and Sons Corporation” which was a family
corporation owned by the Guillermos, in which Jose Emmanuel Guillermo, the
President and General Manager of RCVPI, is one of the stockholders; b) that Jose
received the writ using the nickname “Joey” concealing his real identity and
pretended to be the brother of Jose; c) that RCVPI has already been dissolved.
Labor Arbiter granted the motion filed by respondent and held herein petitioner Jose
Emmanuel Guillermo, in his personal capacity jointly and severally liable with the
corporation stating that the officers of the corporation are jointly and severally liable
for the obligations of the corporation (“piercing the veil of corporate fiction”) to the
employees even if the said officers were not parties to the case. Guillermo filed a
Motion for Reconsideration/To Set Aside the Order of the labor arbiter. His
contentions were a) officers cannot be included as judgement obligor in a labor case
for the first time only after the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and
executory b) in piercing the veil of RCVPI, he was allegedly discriminated against
when he alone was belatedly impleaded despite the existence of other officers of
RCVPI; c)that the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction because the case is one of an
intra-corporate controversy, with the complainant Uson also claiming to be a
stockholder and director of the corporation.
Issues:
Whether an officer of a corporation may be included as judgement obligor in a labor
case for the first time only after the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final
and executory. Whether the twin doctrines of “piercing the veil of corporate fiction”
and personal liability of company officers in labor cases apply.
Ruling:
The Petition is denied.
In earlier labor cases, the Court held that persons who were not originally impleaded
in the case were, even during execution, held to be solidarity liable with the employer
corporation for the latter's unpaid obligations to complainant-employees. Personal
liability attaches only when, as enumerated by the said Section 31 of the Corporation
Code, there is a wilfull and knowing assent to patently unlawful acts of the
corporation, there is gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the
corporation, or there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the corporation.
The conferment of liability on officers for a corporation's obligations to labor is held to
be an exception to the general doctrine of separate personality of a corporation. It
also bears emphasis that in cases where personal liability attaches, not even all
officers are made accountable. Rather, only the "responsible officer," i.e., the person
directly responsible for and who "acted in bad faith" in committing the illegal
dismissal or any act violative of the Labor Code, is held solitarily liable, in cases
where in the corporate veil is pierced The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced,
and responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but related
corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable solidarity in a labor case, even
after final judgment and on execution, so long as it is established that such persons
have deliberately used the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment
obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so. In the case at
hand, respondent Uson’s sworn allegations stating that Guillermo was the
responsible officer in charge of running the company as well as the one who
maliciously and illegally dismissed Uson from employment was uncontroverted.
Furthermore, it was Guillermo himself, as President and General Manager of the
company, who received the summons to the case, and who also subsequently and
without justifiable cause refused to receive all notices and orders.

Digested Crime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Digested Crime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digested Crime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES, INC

Maguindanao Massacre (2009):

Vizconde Massacre (1991):

Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez Case (1993):

Chiong Sisters Case (1997):

Dacer-Corbito Double Murder Case (2000):

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee, -versus- RODOLFO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, -versus- MANUEL CORPUZ,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO JAPAG and

The most important requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- RODOLFO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- GENERALDO M.

Case Digest: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC. v. Lluz et al.

Herma Shipyard, Inc. vs. Danilo Olivares et al.

Ernesto Brown vs. Marswan Marketing, Inc. et al.

Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia et al.

SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG,

Maguindanao Massacre (2009):

Vizconde Massacre (1991):

Dacer-Corbito Double Murder (2000):

Kidapawan Massacre (2016):

Subic Rape Case (2006):

Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Allan Lapastora and Irene Ubalubao

Diamond Farms, Inc. v. SPFL et al.

Jamias et al. v. NLRC

Jamias et al. v. NLRC

2, 2011, petitioner accompanied by counsel, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

Case Digest: JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P.

You might also like