1.

) Dungo v People – Hazing/Circumstantial Evidence

2.) People v Ejercito – Rape
3.) Lim v People – Prescription of Action
4.) International Service v Greenpeace Southeast Asia
5.) Baguilat, Jr. v Alvarez – writ of mandamus
6.) BIÑAS-NOGRALES, ET AL. VS. COMELEC –
7.) Bucal v Bucal – TPO-PPO/Visitation Rights/ grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which deserves correction through
the prerogative writ of certiorari.

8.) Toyota Pasig Inc v Peralta – Petition is DENIED. “One who pleads payment has
the burden of proving it, and even where the employees must allege non-
payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove
payment, rather than on the employees to prove non-payment. The reason for the
rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other
similar documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive
leave, and other claims of the worker have been paid - are not in the possession
of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.”

9.) Inter-orient Maritime v Candava - Petition is DENIED. “necessitous men are not,
truly speaking, free men; but to answer a present emergency, will submit to any
terms that the crafty may impose upon them." Besides, as a rule, quitclaims,
waivers, or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are largely ineffective to
bar recovery of the full measure of a worker’s rights, and the acceptance of
benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel. Therefore the settlements that
Joselito entered into must be struck down for being contrary to public policy.
Thus, death claim is compensable.

10.) Mahilum v VECO - Petition is DENIED. Mahilum was terminated for a just and
valid cause. Moreover, as declared by the NLRC, VECO complied with the
procedural due process requirements of furnishing Mahilum with two written
notices before the termination of employment can be effected. While it is the
state's responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as
an instrument to oppress management and capital. In resolving disputes between
labor and capital, fairness and justice should always prevail. Social justice does
not mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor.
Justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the
established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

11.) Surigao Del Norte Electric Coop v Teofilo Gonzaga - Petition is GRANTED.
Records reveal that while Gonzaga was given an ample opportunity to be heard
 within the purview of the foregoing principles, SURNECO, however, failed to show
that it followed its own rules which mandate that the employee who is sought to
be terminated be afforded a formal hearing or conference. Case law states that
an employer who terminates an employee for a valid cause but does so through
invalid procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal damages.

12.) Mercado v Manzano – The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. Private respondent's oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when considered
with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education,
practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this
country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. Filipino.
Qualified to run the election. Must be proclaimed winner.

13.) Torres v People - Petition is DENIED. Petitioner's act of whipping AAA on the
neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of cruelty. Being smacked several times
in a public place is a humiliating and traumatizing experience for all persons
regardless of age. Petitioner, as an adult, should have exercised restraint and self-
control rather than retaliate against a 14-year-old child.

14.) Beumer v Amores - Petition is DENIED. In this case, petitioner’s statements

regarding the real source of the funds used to purchase the subject parcels of
land dilute the veracity of his claims: While admitting to have previously executed
a joint affidavit that respondent’s personal funds were used to purchase Lot 1,28
he likewise claimed that his personal disability funds were used to acquire the
same. Evidently, these inconsistencies show his untruthfulness. Thus, as petitioner
has come before the Court with unclean hands, he is now precluded from seeking
any equitable refuge.

15.) Casan Maquiling v COMELEC - Petition is GRANTED. Arnado, by using his US

passport after renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath
of Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to
his situation. He is disqualified not only from holding the public office but even
from becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections. Maquiling is not a second-
placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified
candidates. With Arnado’s disqualification, Maquiling then becomes the winner in
the election as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified
candidates.