ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

The Supreme Court decides: The corporation is deemed the actual member sitting on the board, with their representatives merely acting on their behalf.

Under Section 4 of MPMCC’s By-Laws, corporations may designate a representative to act in all matters related to the corporation, including service of notice of assessments and meetings, grants of proxies, voting on any matter, and the like.

Duties of Employers in Sexual Harassment Cases

In the Philippines, there were two (2) laws enacted to address sexual harassment. First is Republic Act (RA) 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, and second is RA No. 11313 or the Safe Spaces Act.
The said laws provide for the duties of employers, heads of offices, and even school heads, on how to handle sexual harassment in a work-related, education, or training environment, which would include the creation of a committee on decorum and investigation (CODI) and the imposition of administrative penalties against the perpetrators.

Threefold Liability Rule

Under the “threefold liability rule,” the wrongful acts or omissions of public officers may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liabilities. Corollarily, public officers could still be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party notwithstanding their acquittal. (Matobato, Sr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)

What is Double Jeopardy?

In a legal system that promises fairness, the principle of double jeopardy protects individuals from being unjustly accused and prosecuted for the same offense more than once. This is enshrined in Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides:

“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.”

The Supreme Court decides: Using common family terms – like “niece” or “uncle” – in a criminal charge is enough to inform the accused of the nature of their relationship to the victim, especially when that relationship qualifies the crime and increases the penalty.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that using common family terms – like “niece” or “uncle” – in a criminal charge is enough to inform the accused of the nature of their relationship to the victim, especially when that relationship qualifies the crime and increases the penalty.

Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (Presidential Decree No. 1829)

Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) enumerates the accessories who are exempt from criminal liability, particularly those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
However the aforesaid accessories who are exempted under Article 20 can still be held liable as principals for obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1829 or “Penalizing Obstruction Of Apprehension And Prosecution Of Criminal Offenders”.

Section 1 of the PD No. 1829 provides for the acts that may be considered as obstruction of justice.