File Name Convention:

[Subject Code]_Case Digest_[Title of Case Digest]_GR No [XXXXX]_[Date Promulgated]

TITLE (e.g., Tan v. David)

(e.g., Jorge L. Tan and Henry P. Sy (Petitioners)

v.

Goliath S. David, as Executive Assistant to the Vice President, Joseph P. Lagarda, representing
the Court of Appeals (Respondents)

CITATION (e.g., G.R. No. 112345, 9 September 1970)

PONENTE (e.g., J. Dela Cruz; Per Curiam; En Banc)
TOPIC (e.g., Waiver of Rights)

FACTS OF THE CASE

● Facts No. 01; and
● Facts No. 02

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

The RTC ruled in FAVOR OF/AGAINST the PETITIONER/RESPONDENT on the following grounds:
● Reason 1;
● Reason 2; and
● Reason 3.

APPELLATE COURT (COURT OF APPEALS OR COURT OF APPEALS)

The CA ruled in FAVOR OF/AGAINST the PETITIONER/RESPONDENT and AFFIRMED/SET
ASIDE/REVERSED the decision of the RTC on the following grounds:
● Reason 1:

● Reason 2; and

● Reason 3.

ISSUE
● Issue No. 01 (e.g., WHETHER OR NOT the waiver is valid); and
● Issue No. 02.

ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
● Argument No. 1; ● Argument No. 1;
● Argument No. 2; and
● Argument No. 3. ● Argument No. 2; and

● Argument No. 3.

RULING, IN TOTO (SUPREME COURT)

The Supreme Court, ruled that:

“Wherefore, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to determine whether the
award decreed in its decision is more than that of ECC. Should the award decreed by the trial court be
greater than that awarded by the ECC, payments already made to private respondent pursuant to the
Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom.”

“In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.”

DISSENTING/ CONCURRING OPINIONS

Article 6 of the Civil Code:
“Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.”

DOCTRINE
Article 6 of the Civil Code:
“Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.”