This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated through their Agreement[38] executed on December 14, 1996 after Civil Decree No. 362/96 was rendered on February 22, 1996, and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued on March 4, 1997. Veritably, the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca was valid. | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Complainant likewise assails respondent's December 3, 2001 Resolution and accuses him of gross ignorance of the law for its issuance. She contends that respondent should have cited the prosecution in contempt for failing to file the formal offer of evidence as directed, instead of dismissing the case solely on that technicality. She also contends that respondent should have applied Tiomico v. Court of Appeals,[19] where this Court held that if the purpose of the testimony is stated, but the testimony is not formally offered, the testimony should nonetheless be admitted. Citing Tiomico, complainant argues that respondent erred when he failed to consider the documentary and testimonial evidence offered by the prosecution.[20] At the same time, however, complainant faults respondent for allegedly having misappreciated her testimony. She avers that respondent erred when he held that she admitted having no proof that Betty Jao actually received the demand letters. She asserts that her testimony in court sufficiently proves that Betty Jao received notice of the demand letters at her known address through a certain Jun who signed the registry return cards. She adds that respondent's gross ignorance also shows in his failure to apply the ruling in Flores v. National Labor Relations Commission,[21] where we held that the decision of the NLRC sent by registered mail is presumed to have been delivered to a person who was authorized to receive papers for the addressee.[22] | |||||