Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
We regret to inform your good self that your full time probationary appointment
will not be renewed when it expires at the end of this coming March 31, 2005.
Thank you so much for the services that you have rendered to USI and to her
clientele the past several semesters. We strongly and sincerely encourage you to
pursue your desire to complete your Post Graduate studies in the University of your
choice as soon as you are able.
God bless you in all your future endeavors.
Godspeed!13
ISSUE;
Whether respondents probationary employment was validly terminated by
petitioner.
HELD:
In a letter dated February 26, 2005, petitioner terminated the services of
respondent stating that his probationary employment as teacher will no longer be
renewed upon its expiry on March 31, 2005, respondents fifth semester of teaching.
No just or authorized cause was given by petitioner. Prior to this, respondent had
consistently achieved above average rating based on evaluation by petitioners
officials and students. He had also been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor
after finishing his masters degree course on his third semester of teaching. Clearly,
respondents termination after five semesters of satisfactory service was illegal.
Respondent therefore is entitled to continue his three-year probationary period,
such that from March 31, 2005, his probationary employment is deemed renewed
for the following semester (1st semester of SY 2005-2006). However, given the
discordant relations that had arisen from the parties dispute, it can be inferred with
certainty that petitioner had opted not to retain respondent in its employ beyond
the three-year period.
Furthermore, they suggest that petitioners intend to resell the property for a higher
profit, thus, the attempt to repurchase. Lastly, respondents argue that repurchase is
a real action capable of pecuniary estimation.
The Issue
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the motion for the dismissal of the case on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
HELD
The petition is meritorious.
The core issue is whether the action filed by petitioners is one involving title to or
possession of real property or any interest therein or one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a
civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
xxxx
In the case at bar, [respondent bank] and [petitioners-spouses] expressly stipulated
in the promissory notes the rate of interest to be applied to the loan obtained by the
latter from the former, x x x.
In this case, while we similarly annulled the escalation clause contained in the
promissory notes, this Court opted not to impose the original rates of interest
stipulated therein for being excessive, the same being 17.5% to 27% per interest
period.
Following the foregoing rulings of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the imposition
by this Court of a 12% rate of interest per annum on the principal loan obligation of
[petitioners-spouses], computed from the time of default, is proper as it is
consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
G.R. No. L-46765 August 29, 1986
JOSEPH & SONS ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO T. LAT, BIENVENIDO LAUREL & PAZ BANAADLAUREL, respondents.
Ernesto P. Pangalangan for petitioner.
Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. for private respondents.
FERIA, J.:
On April 1, 1964 respondent Rodolfo T. Lat purchased the lot in question from the
Makati Development Corporation. One condition embodied in the Deed of Absolute
Sale was that the lot could not be sold, transferred, or conveyed until after the
construction of a house thereon was completed. In spite of his having fully paid for
the lot, respondent Lat could not have it registered in his name because another
condition of the sale was that the deed of sale could not be registered and the title
would not be released to the buyer until the house has been completely
constructed.
WON: The condition is valid?
HELD:
We see no error in the lower Court's finding of facts. The evidence shows that when
defendant Rodolfo T. Lat purchased the parcel of land from the Makati Development
Corporation, the deed of absolute sale carried a special condition that there ran be
no resale until complete construction; that the deed shall not be registered, and title
shall not be released to the buyer until the house has been completely constructed.
When the Laurels purchased the lot from Rodolfo T. Lat, no transfer certificate of
title could be issued in their name because of the above condition. When the
Laurels completed constructing the house and wanted to sell it with the lot, the title
was not yet in their name. Rather than have the title transferred to their name and
from them eventually to Joseph and Sons' Enterprises, the three parties involved
decided to have Rodolfo T. Lat execute the deed of conditional sale, in behalf of the
Laurels, in favor of the plaintiff vendee.