Skip to main content

Posts

Bullying

By: Atty. Karissa Tolentino A School is every student’s second home. It is a place where they get to meet new friends and acquaintances. It is a place where they meet their teachers, who are their second parents while they are away from home. Ultimately, a School is where students are taught to read, write and count. It is a place where they are taught of many things: from Science and Mathematics, to English and Filipino. It is also a place where they are taught of Filipino values like patriotism and nationalism, to name a few. A School is a place where students get to learn some of the lessons they need to bring with them when they grow old. A School must then be a friendly zone where our children are safe while they are away from their parents. But are schools still safe for our children now? A Almost every day, a lot of elementary and secondary students are being bullied by their fellow students at the school premises, and most of them are silent about this. They are afrai
Recent posts

Salonga Center volunteers reap awards in the 6th National IHL Moot Court Competition

Volunteers of the Salonga Center were declared best mooters in the 6th National IHL Moot Court Competition held in Manila last November 17-19, 2010. Milmon Bryce Tenorio bagged the Best Mooter Award in the General Rounds, while co-oralist Micah Dagaerag was declared Best Mooter in the Final Round. Representing the SU College of Law, Dagaerag and Tenorio successfully defended their positions which qualified them for the semi-finals and ultimately in the final round where they grabbed the championship trophy against the University of the Philippines, Diliman. The competition was participated by 14 law schools in the country namely: Ateneo de Davao University, Ateneo de Manila University, Far Eastern University, Lyceum of the Philippines University, San Beda College, St. Louis University, Silliman University, Southwestern University, University of Batangas, University of Cebu, the University of the Philippines-Diliman, University of St. La Salle, University of San Carlos and Xavier Uni
PEOPLE vs.NATIVIDAD FRANKLIN, G.R. No. L-21507 June 7, 1971 Appeal taken by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dated April 17, 1963, forfeiting the bail bond posted by it for the provisional release of Natividad Franklin, the accused in Criminal Case No. 4300 of said court, as well as from the latter's orders denying the surety company's motion for a reductions of bail, and its motion for reconsideration thereof. It appears that an information filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Angeles, Pampanga, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5536, Natividad Franklin was charged with estafa. Upon a bail bond posted by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. in the amount of P2,000.00, she was released from custody. After the preliminary investigation of the case, the Justice of the Peace Court elevated it to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding informa

Soco vs. Hon. Militante, et al. June 28, 1983 [GRN 58961 June 28, 1983]

FACTS: The plaintiff-appellee-Soco (lessor) and the defendant-appellant-Francisco (lessee) entered into a contract of lease on for commercial building and lot for a monthly rental of P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the option of the lessee. One time, Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were payments made but no receipts were issued. Soon after Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00 which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying to Soco under the Contract of Lease, the latter felt that she was on the losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract. Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust an

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER G.R. NO. L-28569 February 27, 1970 FACTS: On September 7, 1954, petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. entered a contract to sell with respondent Ligaya Javier a parcel of land known as Lot No. 28, Block No. 356, PSD 30328, of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision for the sum of Php3,691.20 with 10% interest per annum; Php396.12 will be payable upon execution of the contract, and an installment of Php43.92 monthly for a period of ten (10) years. It was further stipulated in the contract, particularly the sixth paragraph, that upon failure of respondent to pay the monthly installment, she is given a one month grace period to pay such installment together with the monthly installment falling on the said grace period. Furthermore, failure to pay both monthly installments, respondent will pay an additional 10% interest. And after 90 days from the end of the grace period, petitioner can rescind the contract, the payments made by respondent will be consider

NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY CO. INC. VS. SENERIS

NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY CO. INC. VS. SENERIS 10 SCRA 686 FACTS: Petitioner, New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. was the defendant in a complaint for collection of money filed by private respondent, Ricardo A. Tong. In this complaint, respondent Judge rendered a compromise judgment based on the amicable settlement entered by the parties wherein petitioner will pay to private respondent P54,500.00 at 6% interest per annum and P6,000.00 as attorney’s fee of which P5,000.00 has been paid. Upon failure of the petitioner to pay the judgment obligation, a writ of execution worth P63,130.00 was issued levied on the personal properties of the petitioner. Before the date of the auction sale, petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court in his capacity as the Ex-Officio Sheriff P50,000.00 in Cashier’s Check of the Equitable Banking Corporation and P13,130.00 in cash for a total of P63,130.00. Private respondent refused to accept the check and the cash and requested for the auction s

ARAÑAS VS. TUTAAN

ARAÑAS VS. TUTAAN 127 SCRA 828 FACTS: On May 3, 1971 the lower court declared thatPetitioner Luisa Quijencio (and by her spouse Jose Arañas)was the owner of 400 shares including the stock dividendsthat accrued to said shares, of respondent Universal Textile Mills, Inc. (UTEX) as defendant and Gene Manueland B. R. Castañeda as co-defendants, and subsequently ordered UTEX to cancel said certificates and issue new ones in the name of Plaintiff and to deliver all dividendsappertaining to the same, whether in cash or in stocks.UTEX filed a motion for clarification whether thephrase “to deliver to her all dividends appertaining to thesame, whether in cash or in stocks” meant dividends properly pertaining to plaintiffs after the court’sdeclaration of plaintiff ownership of said 400 shares of stock. Defendant UTEX has always maintained it would rightfully abide by whatever decision may be rendered since such would be the logical consequence after the ruling in respect to the rightful ownership