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.

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.

The Supreme Court decides: Letting customers listen to a short 20-second sample of a ringtone before buying does not violate copyright laws.

The doctrine of fair use allows the courts to deviate from strictly applying the copyright laws when their rigid application would stifle the creativity that they are designed to foster and when it would frustrate the State’s function to promote the diffusion of knowledge and information.

The Supreme Court decides: An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment the parties come to agree upon its terms and conditions, and thereafter, concur in the essential elements thereof.

On April 1, 2016, petitioner Paolo Landayan Aragones (Aragones) was offered the position Swine Technical Manager – Pacific (STMP) by respondent Alltech Biotechnology Corporation (Alltech). On April 18, 2016, Aragones signed the Offer Letter dated April 1, 2016.
The Offer Letter outlines the terms and conditions for the position, including the commencement date of his employment which is July 1, 2016.

The Supreme Court decides: A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code.

The instant case stemmed from the Petition filed by Linney seeking the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Ramer before the trial court, invoking psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Supreme Court Holds School Liable for Negligence in Bullying Incident

In 2007, Rhys Palaganas (Rhys) was enrolled as a grade school student at Mother Goose School in Dagupan City, Pangasinan. He was classmates with Noel Fernandez (Noel) and Mark Dy (Mark).
On January 19, 2007, Noel lost his mechanical pencil during Music class. Rhys found Noel’s pencil and brought it home. Few days after, Noel noticed that Rhys was using his mechanical pencil during Filipino class. Noel allowed Rhys to use the pencil because Rhys had no pencil at that time. However, Rhys forgot to return the pencil at the end of the day.

The Supreme Court decides: The Supreme Court has reiterated that the presumption that a letter was properly delivered, based on a post office’s registry return receipt, does not apply when strong evidence suggests otherwise.

Proof of service of the assailed judgment must be clearly established to properly determine the period for filing an appeal. To this end, the registry return receipt alone will not suffice to prove service through registered mail.

The Supreme Court Decides: Family and Friends’ Testimonies Can Prove Psychological Incapacity in Nullity of Marriage Cases

Sometime in 2006, Jeffery, a United States Navy retiree, met Rowena in a bar owner by Rowena’s mother. At that time they started dating, Jeffery knew Rowena had two children from a previous relationship, and Rowena knew Jeffery was married to another, but that his divorce was still pending.

The Supreme Court decides: Lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of notarial commission.

Photo from Pexels | Kaboompics.com The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices Read more about The Supreme Court decides: Lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of notarial commission.[…]