G.R. No.

219683
Dela cruz vs Ochoa
Judicial Decisions

F: The LTO formulated the Motor Vehicle License Plate Standardization

Program (MVPSP) to supply the new license plates for both old and new vehicle
registrants.
Bidding ensued and JKG-Power Plates made the lowest offers. However, the COA
issued a Notice of Disallowance on the ground that the transaction had been
irregular and illegal because of the lapse of time between the notice of award (July
22, 2013) and the contract signing (February 21, 2014).

On September 1, 2015, petitioners dela Cruz and Tambunting are members

of the House of Representatives. They filed this case to assail the constitutionality
of the implementation of the MVPSP using funds appropriated under the 2014
General Appropriations Act. Prior to the filing of this case, however, Jacomille v.
Abaya has already been decided where the SC ruled that the 2014 GAA already
included the full appropriation necessary to fund the MVPSP.

I: W/N the decision in G.R. No.212381 (Jacomille) constituted stare decisis.

H: Yes, the decision in Jacomile, where the Court decided that whatever defects
had attended its procurement were "cured" by the appropriation for the full amount
of the project under the 2014 GAA, rendered the present petition moot and
academic.

Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion
reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds
from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing
considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.
G.R. No. 200010
Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association v. Ma. Rollette G. Prudente
Customs

F: In 1997, Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association gave its
employee Rollette Prudente her first service vehicle. Later, Rollete purchased the
vehicle from Home Credit at its depreciated value. In 2003, Home Credit granted
Rollete's request for a second service vehicle. However, Home Credit required
Rollete to pay for additional equity in excess of the maximum limit of
P660,000.00. In 2008, Rollete again purchased the vehicle at its depreciated value.

In 2009, Rollette applied for a third service vehicle. This time, Home Credit
informed Rollette that she must pay the equity more than P550,000.00. Home
Credit likewise adopted a cost sharing scheme where Rollette must shoulder 40%
of the acquisition price. Aggrieved, Rollette filed a complaint against Home Credit
for violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code on non-diminution of benefits before
the Labor Arbiter.

LA ruled against Rolette, CA reversed the decision of the LA, hence this
petition for certiorari.

I: W/N the car plan has become a company practice / custom?

H: No, we find that the car plan has not ripened into a company practice.

As a rule, "practice" or "custom" is not a source of a legally demandable or

enforceable right. In labor cases, however, benefits which were voluntarily given
by the employer, and which have ripened into company practice, are considered as
rights and are subject to the non-diminution rule. To be considered a company
practice, the benefit must be consistently and deliberately granted by the employer
over a long period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer
agreed to continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employee is not
covered by any provision of law or agreement for its payment.

Here, the labor tribunals correctly held that Home Credit's act of giving
service vehicles to Rollette has been a company practice - but not as to the non-
participation aspect. There was no substantial evidence to prove that the car
plan at full company cost had ripened into company practice. Notably, the
only time Rollette was given a service vehicle fully paid for by the company
was for her first car. For the second vehicle, the company already imposed a
maximum limit of P660,000.00 but Rollette never questioned this. She
willingly paid for the equity in excess of said limit. Thus, the elements of
consistency and deliberateness are not present.

Nactor vs. IAC

G.R. No. 74122
Periods

F: Spouses Claro and Magdalena Melchor filed a case against Guillermo

Nactor before the MTC for the recovery of their property.

MTC ruled in favor of Sps Melchor. They filed an MR which was denied. Case
was appealed to the RTC.

RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC on June 4, 1985. Nactor filed an MR on
June 24, 1985. The MR was denied for being filed out of time.

I: W/N the MR was filed out of time.

H: Yes, the MR was filed out of time.

MR should have been filed within 15 days from receipt of the Decision. J

udgment was rendered on June 4, 1985, hence the MR should have been filed on or
before June 19, 1985.

In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.
and also in the Revised Administrative Code which likewise provides:

Section 13. Computation of time in computing any fixed period-of

time, with reference to the performance of an act required by law or
contract to be done at a certain time or within a certain limit of time,
the day or date, or day from which the time is reckoned, is to be
excluded and the date of performance, included, unless otherwise
provided.

However, in case the last day is a Sunday or a legal holiday, it is understood that
where the time refers to a period prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by
an order of the court, or by any other applicable statute, the last day should really
be the next day, provided said day is neither a Sunday nor a legal holiday. The law
cannot require compliance on a day when entities supposed to receive pleadings or
documents are closed in view of the holiday.

June 21 – Friday
June 22 – Saturday
June 23 – Sunday
June 24 – Monday