Garcia vs Philippine Airlines, (Case Digest)

 Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,

G.R. No. 164856, 01.20.09

Subject: Labor

Facts:

PAL filed administrative charge against its employees-herein petitioners after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Center’s Toolroom Section. PAL dismissed petitioners on October 9, 1995 for transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline.

Labor Arbiter resolved the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner in their favor, thus ordering PAL to mmediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. NLRC dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit. Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution (Writ) respecting the reinstatement aspect and issued a Notice of Garnishment (Notice). Respondent thereupon moved to quash the Writ and to lift the Notice while petitioners moved to release the garnished amount. NLRC affirmed the validity of the Writ and the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but suspended and referred the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action.

 

Issue:

Whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning that of the Labor Arbiter

 

Held:

Yes, no refund if pending appeal an adverse judgment is rendered against the labor.

 

Ratio:

Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family. 

The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise "unjust" situation as a condition affording full protection to labor.

Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human experience, the "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.

ACAP vs CA (Case Digest on Property)

 ACAP vs CA

GR. No. 118114

Subject:Property

 

Facts:

Felixberto Oruma inherited a parcel of land from his parent; and the said land was sold by Felixberto to Cosme Pido. Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his leasehold rentals.

The controversy began when Pido died intestate, his surviving heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights to the subject lot in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES".

Private respondent sought for petitioner (Acap) to personally inform him that he (Edy) had become the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals. After the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner

During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private respondent's ownership over the subject land.  [CA] Like the trial court, respondent court was also convinced that the said document stands as prima facie proof of appellee's (private respondent's) ownership of the land in dispute.

Issue:

Whether or not the subject declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is a recognized mode of acquiring ownership

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question.

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and the derivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum).

ACAP vs CA (Case Digest on Sale)

 ACAP vs CA

GR. No. 118114

Subject: Sale

 

Facts:

Felixberto Oruma inherited a parcel of land from his parent; and the said land was sold by Felixberto to Cosme Pido. Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his leasehold rentals.

The controversy began when Pido died intestate, his surviving heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights to the subject lot in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES".

Private respondent sought for petitioner (Acap) to personally inform him that he (Edy) had become the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals. After the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner

During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private respondent's ownership over the subject land.  [CA] Like the trial court, respondent court was also convinced that the said document stands as prima facie proof of appellee's (private respondent's) ownership of the land in dispute.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Right" can be considereda deed of sale.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent.

Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.

Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession.

Polytechnic University vs CA (Case Digest)

 Polytechnic University vs CA

G. R. No. 143513

 

Facts:

Firestone Ceramics Inc (Firestone) leased the portion of the property of National Development Corporation (DND) for the period of ten years and renewable for another ten years.  Firestone constructed on the leased property several warehouse for the fabrication of ceramic products.

NDC planed to dispose the subject propert in favor of petitioner PUP.  Upon learning the same; Firestone served notice on NDC conveying its desire to purchase the property in the exercise of its contractual right of refusal.

FIRESTONE instituted an action for specific performance to compel NDC to sell the leased property in its favor. FIRESTONE averred that it was pre-empting the impending sale of the NDC compound to petitioner PUP in violation of its leasehold rights over the 2.60-hectare8 property and the warehouses thereon which would expire in 1999.

PUP moved to intervene and asserted its interest in the subject property; PUP referred to Memorandum Order No. 214 issued by then President Aquino ordering the transfer of the whole NDC compound to the National Government, which in turn would convey the aforementioned property in favor of PUP at acquisition cost. The issuance was supposedly made in recognition of PUP's status as the "Poor Man's University" as well as its serious need to extend its campus in order to accommodate the growing student population.

Trial Court, judgment was rendered declaring the contracts of lease executed between FIRESTONE and NDC covering the 2.60-hectare property and the warehouses constructed thereon valid and existing until 2 June 1999. PUP was ordered and directed to sell to FIRESTONE the "2.6 hectare leased premises.  CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification as to the award of Attorney's Fee.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the courts a quo erred when they "conjectured" that the transfer of the leased property from NDC to PUP amounted to a sale

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Aside from the fact that the intention of NDC and PUP to enter into a contract of sale was clearly expressed in the Memorandum Order No. 214,31 a close perusal of the circumstances of this case strengthens the theory that the conveyance of the property from NDC to PUP was one of absolute sale, for a valuable consideration, and not a mere paper transfer as argued by petitioners.

A contract of sale, as defined in the Civil Code, is a contract where one of the parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing to the other or others who shall pay therefore a sum certain in money or its equivalent.32 It is therefore a general requisite for the existence of a valid and enforceable contract of sale that it be mutually obligatory, i.e., there should be a concurrence of the promise of the vendor to sell a determinate thing and the promise of the vendee to receive and pay for the property so delivered and transferred. The Civil Code provision is, in effect, a "catch-all" provision which effectively brings within its grasp a whole gamut of transfers whereby ownership of a thing is ceded for a consideration.