A motion for extension of time to file a pleading must befiled before the expiration of the period sought to beextended. The court's discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion's timeliness, the passing of which renders the court powerless to entertainor grant it.
Altres v. Empleo, 10 Dec 2008
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates incapsule form the jurisprudential pronouncementsrespecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certificationagainst forum shopping:1) Non-compliance with the requirement on or submissionof defective verification is distinct from non-compliancewith the requirement on or submission of defectivecertification against forum shopping.2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defecttherein does not necessarily render the pleading fatallydefective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attendingcircumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rulemay be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.3) Verification is deemed substantially
complied withwhen one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truthof the allegations in the complaint or petition signs theverification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike inverification, is generally not curable by its subsequentsubmission or correction thereof, unless there is a need torelax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance"or presence of "special circumstances or compellingreasons."5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise,those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to thecase. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share acommon interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in thecertification against forum shopping substantially complieswith the Rule.6) The certification against forum shopping must beexecuted by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If,however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party- pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Madrigalejos v. Geminilou, 24 Dec 2008
Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work becausecontinued employment is rendered impossible,unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person inthe employee's position would have felt compelled to giveup his job under the circumstances.
Garcia v. PAL, 20 Jan 2009
The Court reaffirms the principle that even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, itis obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the periodof appeal until reversal by the higher court. It settles theview that the Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement isimmediately executory and the employer has to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them inthe payroll, and that failing to exercise the options,employer must pay the employee’s salaries. However, theemployee may be barred from collecting the accruedwages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing thereinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the partof the employer, such as when the employer is under corporate rehabilitation.
People v. Antonio, 20 Jan 2009
For a rape victim’s supposed Affidavit of Desistance towarrant a new trial, it must deny the truth of her complaint,not merely seek the withdrawal of appellant’s prosecution.Her statement that there is no sufficient basis for her father to be convicted of rape and it is unjust to convict her father and let him suffer ("walang sapat na batayan at hindimakatarungan na mahatulan at magdusa ang aking amangsi Elpidio Antonio") is just a legal conclusion.
Spouses v. Dizon, 21 Jan 2009
The presumption of equitable mortgage is not conclusive.It may be rebutted by competent and satisfactory proof of the contrary. Here, ample evidence supports petitioners’claim that the transaction between them and respondentwas one of sale with option to repurchase. While after thesale of the property respondent remained therein, her staywas not in the concept of an owner. Also, considering thatthe assessed value of the land and its improvements at thetime of the sale was P29,850, the P550,000 purchase priceis not inadequate.
Macasero v. , 30 Jan 2009
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two separateand distinct reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. Ininstances where reinstatement is no longer feasible becauseof strained relations between the employee and theemployer, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement isgranted. The normal consequences of respondents’ illegaldismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniorityrights, and payment of backwages computed from the timecompensation was withheld up to the date of actualreinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable,separation pay equivalent to 1 month salary for every year of service should be awarded. The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.
People v. Corpuz, 30 Jan 2009
The supposed stepfather-stepdaughter relationship betweenappellant and AAA, was alleged in each of theInformations. This relationship as a qualifyingcircumstance presupposes that the victim’s mother and theaccused contracted marriage. The prosecution, however,did not present proof that AAA’s mother and appellant didcontract marriage. What appellant claimed is that they aremerely common-law spouses ("live-in" partners), whichcould also qualify the offense but only if the same isalleged in each of the Informations and proven at the trial.