Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Under Section 4, Article X of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement HELD: In a labor case, the written statements of co-employees admitting
(CBA), Prudentialife employees were granted an optical benefit allowance their participation in a scheme to defraud the employer are admissible in
of P2,500.00 to subsidize prescription eyeglasses for those who have evidence. The argument by an employee that the said statements
developed vision problems in the course of employment. The pertinent CBA constitute hearsay because the authors thereof were not presented for
provision states: their cross-examination does not persuade, because the rules of evidence
are not strictly observed in proceedings before the National Labor Relations
Section 4. Optical benefit. – The Company shall provide an amount not to Commission (NLRC), which are summary in nature and decisions may be
exceed P2,500.00 inclusive of VAT to any covered employee to defray the
made on the basis of\position papers.
cost of eyeglasses that may be prescribed by the accredited HMO physician
or employee’s personal optometrist. The benefit can be availed of only once
every two(2)years.4
The project employment scheme used by TNS easily circumvented the law Facts:
and precluded its employees from attaining regular employment status in
the subtlest way possible.Petitioners were rehired not intermittently, but Lorenzo Shipping is the owner and operator of the commercial vessel MV
continuously,contract after contract, month after month,... involving the Lorcon Luzon.[8] National Power Corporation is the owner of Power Barge
very same tasks. They practically performed exactly the same functions over 104, "a non-propelled power plant barge."[9]
several years. Ultimately,without a doubt, the functions they performed On March 20, 1993, Power Barge 104 was berthed and stationed at the
were indeed vital and necessary to the very business or trade of TNS. Makar Wharf in General Santos City when the MV Lorcon Luzon "hit and
PEOPLE VS MANIEGO rammed Power Barge 104."
Following this incident, Nelson Homena, Plant Manager of Power Barge 104,
FACTS filed a Marine Protest before the Board of Marine Inquiry. Captain Villarias
Accused-appellant Maniego was an indorser of several checks drawn by her also filed his own Marine Protest. For his part, Captain Yape filed a Marine
sister, which were dishonored after they have been exchanged with cash Accident Report. The Board of Marine Inquiry... conducted joint hearings on
belonging to the Government. the Marine Protests and Captain Yape's report.
Issues: ISSUE: whether or not the petitioner established her cause of action by a
preponderance of evidence.
Regarding the "Total Incidental Cost for Drydock and Repair," which was
National Power Corporation's Exhibit "F" before the Regional Trial Court, HELD: Preponderance of evidence simply means evidence that is of greater
Lorenzo Shipping underscored that when the Regional Trial Court ruled on weight or more convincing than what is offered against it.10 In determining
National Power Corporation's Formal Offer of Evidence, it... denied the where the preponderance of evidence lies, the court may consider all the
admission of Exhibit "F" for not having been identified nor authenticated. facts and circumstances of the case, such as: the witnesses’ demeanor, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
It emphasized that no witness came forward to attest to its authenticity and they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
due execution, let alone allowed himself or herself to be cross-examined on probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
these points. interest, and their personal credibility so far as it may legitimately appear to
Ruling: the court.
Then, too, Pasimio failed to prove that Gregorio and Miranda HELD: Evidence; motive. It has not been shown that De Guzman had any
defrauded her. Taking into consideration the personal conditions of Pasimio, motive for killing Urieta. The brutal and gruesome attack on Urieta, who sustained
there is no clear and convincing evidence establishing serious fraud or deceit, two stab wounds on the chest, a stab wound along the waist area which hit the liver,
insidious words or machinations on the part of PNB or its officers, sufficient and a stab wound on the elbow, clearly manifested the intention of the
to impress or lead her into error. perpetrator to purposely bring death upon the victim. There was no
evidence, however, that De Guzman carried a grudge or had an axe to grind
Further the law provides for the presumption that: a) that there was against the victim or his family, or even knew the victim at all. Prosecution witnesses Flores
sufficient consideration for a contract; (b that a negotiable instrument was and Gina even attested that they did not know of any reason why De Guzman killed Urieta.
given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. Hence, with Pasimio’s failure Generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be
to substantiate her allegations of fraud and with the corresponding proven. Proof of the same becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity
presumption of considerations when the promissory note and documents of the assailant is in question. In
were made, her claim must fall. People v.Vidad, the Supreme Court ruled that it is true that it is not indispensable to
conviction for murder that the particular motive for taking the life of a human
being shall be established at the trial, and that in general when the
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN commission of a crime is clearly proven, conviction may and should follow
even where the reason for its commission is unknown; but in many criminal cases,
FACTS: De Guzman was charged with the crime of murder. A nexus of logically related one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the commission of the crime
circumstances rendered the testimony of Flores, the supposed witness, highly suspect. His by the accused is the introduction of evidence disclosing the motive which
testimony is laden with improbabilities, and these lead to serious doubts on the tempted the mind to indulge in the criminal act.
veracity of the malefactor’s identity. The incident took place at 11 PM in
a remote barangay with no electric lighting in the surroundings and the only PEOPLE VS BABOR
source of light then was the illumination of a “moron” coming from a
“peryahan.” FACTS: A man's anguished cries for help at around 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of October 22, 1989 awakened prosecution witness Felicidad
Duhaylungsod who was asleep at her home. She instinctively peered out of credit. An investigation was conducted showing that Meralco was liable for
the window and from there, at an approximate distance of twenty meters, (1) deficiency income tax in the amount of P2,340,902.52; and (2) deficiency
she vividly witnessed a ghastly incident. Accused-appellants Nestor Babor franchise tax in the amount of P2,838,335.84.” Later, Meralco filed an
and his wife, Sony Babor, both armed with bolos, were chasing a fleeing and amended final corporate Income Tax Return reflecting a refundable amount
bloodied Evangelino Camias. Then, to Duhaylungsod's horror, Sony Babor of P107,649,729 and thus filed a letter-claim for refund or credit representing
lunged with her weapon at the hapless Camias and hacked him three times overpaid income taxes for the years 1987 and 1988. The Commission of
on different parts of the body. Nestor Babor then delivered the fatal blow by Internal Revenue not having acted on its request, Meralco filed a judicial
stabbing Camias on the chest with his weapon. The three were all neighbors claim for refund or credit with the Court of Tax Appeals. It is gathered that
of Felicidad Duhaylungsod in Rizal, Palawan and were known to her. Meralco paid the deficiency franchise tax in the amount of P2,838,335.84. It
protested the payment of the alleged deficiency income tax and claimed as
ISSUE: Whether the respondents acted in self-defense an alternative remedy the deduction thereof from its claim for refund or
credit. After trial, the Court of Tax Appeals found in favor of Meralco being
convinced that they proved its entitlement for the refund. The Court of
HELD: An accused relying on said justifying circumstances must prove the Appeals affirmed the decision.
same by means of sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.[9] As the
burden of proof rests upon him to establish the same, he must necessarily
ISSUE:
rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that
of the prosecution.[10] And, where the prosecution evidence, as in the present
appeal, renders extremely doubtful the veracity of the defense version, said Whether or not the appellate court failed to consider Meralco’s failure to
defenses cannot be granted any evidentiary weight. substantiate by positive evidence its entitlement to a tax refund or credit.