Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 156208, June 30, 2014


NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION (NPC DAMA), v. THE NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
In the September 26, 2006 Decision,7 the Court declared null and without legal
effect NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-1248 and 2002-125,9 which directed the
termination from the service of all employees of the NPC on January 31, 2003 in line
with the restructuring of the NPC under Republic Act No. 9316 or the Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA). The Court thereafter enjoined the
implementation of the nullified NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125.
ISSUE:
HELD:
First, our final September 26, 2006 Decision and final September 17, 2008
Resolution contemplate and cover all the NPC employees whose illegal termination
from employment stemmed from NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 and NPB Resolution
No. 2002-125. Section 78 of the EPIRA vests the Court with jurisdiction to rule on the
issue of the illegal termination of all the NPC employees as the issue was incidental
to the implementation of the provisions of the EPIRA.
The NPC is barred by estoppel and by the principle of finality of judgment from
raising arguments aimed at modifying our final rulings. Without any supporting
exceptional reason or argument, the NPC and the OSG cannot repeatedly attack our
final judgments by raising points that should have been raised prior to the finality of
our rulings.
UNIVERSIDAD DE STA. ISABEL, Petitioner,
vs.
MARVIN-JULIAN L. SAMBAJON, JR., Respondent.
The Facts
Universidad de Sta. Isabel (petitioner) is a non-stock, non-profit religious
educational institution in Naga City. Petitioner hired Marvin-Julian L. Sambajon, Jr.
(respondent) as a full-time college faculty member with the rank of Assistant
Professor on probationary status, as evidenced by an Appointment Contract4 dated
November 1, 2002, effective November 1, 2002 up to March 30, 2003.
On February 26, 2005, respondent received his letter of termination which stated:
Greetings of Peace in the Lord!

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.

G.R. No. 208232

March 10, 2014

SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA, namely: EPIFANIA G.


BAUTISTA and ZOEY G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners,
vs.
FRANCISCO LINDO and WELHILMINA LINDO;
Petitioners argue that an action for repurchase is not a real action, but one
incapable of pecuniary estimation, it being founded on privity of contract between
the parties. According to petitioners, what they seek is the enforcement of their
right to repurchase the subject property under Section 119 of CA 141.
Respondents, for their part, maintain that since the land is no longer devoted to
agriculture, the right of repurchase under said law can no longer be availed of.

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.

G.R. No. 194201

November 27, 2013

SPOUSES BAYANI H. ANDAL AND GRACIA G. ANDAL, Petitioners,


vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS CITY JOSE C.
CORALES, Respondents.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On September 7, 1995, [petitioners-spouses] obtained a loan from [respondent
bank] in the amount of P21,805,000.00, for which they executed twelve (12)
promissory notes x x x [undertaking] to pay [respondent bank] the principal loan
with varying interest rates of 17.5% to 27% per interest period. It was agreed upon
by the parties that the rate of interest may be increased or decreased for the
subsequent interest periods, with prior notice to [petitioners-spouses], in the event
of changes in interest rates prescribed by law or the Monetary Board x x x, or in the
banks overall cost of funds.
WON: Interest rate is valid
HELD
Settled is the rule that the contracting parties are free to enter into stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, as long as these are
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Pursuant to
Article 1159 of the Civil Code, these obligations arising from such contracts have
the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. x x
x.

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen