Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAIME O. SEVILLA v. CARMELITA N. CARDENAS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203882 2016-01-11	LORELEI O. ILADAN v. LA SUERTE INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER AGENCY DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the instant case, Iladan executed a resignation letter in her own handwriting. She also accepted the amount of P35,000.00 as financial assistance and executed an Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and an Agreement, as settlement and waiver of any cause of action against respondents. The affidavit of waiver and the settlement were acknowledged/subscribed before Labor Attache Romulo on August 6, 2009, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. An affidavit of waiver duly acknowledged before a notary public is a public document which cannot be impugned by mere self-serving allegations. Proof of an irregularity in its execution is absolutely essential. The Agreement likewise bears the signature of Conciliator-Mediator Diaz. Thus, the signatures of these officials sufficiently prove that Iladan was duly assisted when she signed the waiver and settlement. Concededly, the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] In this case, no such evidence was presented. Besides, "[t]he Court has ruled that a waiver or quitclaim is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import."[29] Absent any extant and clear proof of the alleged coercion and threats Iladan allegedly received from respondents that led her to terminate her employment relations with respondents, it can be concluded that Iladan resigned voluntarily.
	GR No. 207443 2014-07-23	GENATO INVESTMENTS v. JUDGE OSCAR P. BARRIENTOS PEREZ, J.
In this case, we stress that the factual allegations in the petition, showing that petitioner fully paid its real property taxes on Lot No. 13-B-1 until 2011, were not refuted by any of the respondents. Further, petitioner presented more than sufficient evidence to support the said factual allegations. This failure of respondents to refute such claim affords us the opportunity to go over the factual antecedents to aid us in the resolution of this case. In the face of overwhelming evidence, respondents' reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance by public respondents of their official duties must fail. The presumption of regularity is a disputable presumption under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which may be rebutted by affirmative evidence.[44]
	AM No. MTJ-07-1691 2013-04-02	OCA v. JUDGE ANATALIO S. NECESSARIO PER CURIAM
However, this Court also said in Sevilla v. Cardenas,[125] that "the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty." The visible superimpositions on the marriage licenses should have alerted the solemnizing judges to the irregularity of the issuance.
	GR No. 177780 2012-01-25	METROPOLITAN BANK v. ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the presumption of authorship, being disputable, may be accepted and acted upon where no evidence upholds the contention for which it stands.[42] It is not correct to say, consequently, that the investigating prosecutor will try to determine the existence of the presumption during preliminary investigation, and then to disregard the evidence offered by the respondent. The fact that the finding of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function does not excuse the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice from discharging the duty to weigh the evidence submitted by the parties. Towards that end, the investigating prosecutor, and, ultimately, the Secretary of Justice have ample discretion to determine the existence of probable cause,[43] a discretion that must be used to file only a criminal charge that the evidence and inferences can properly warrant.
	GR No. 156208 2009-12-02	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The approval of NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 on 14 September 2007 means that the services of all NPC employees have been legally terminated on this date. All separation pay and other benefits to be received by said employees will be deemed cut on this date. The computation thereof shall, therefore, be from the date of their illegal termination pursuant to NPB Resolutions Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 as clarified by NPB Resolution No. 2003-11 and NPC Resolution No. 2003-09 up to 14 September 2007. Although the validity of NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 has not yet been passed upon by the Court, same has to be given effect because NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 enjoys the presumption of regularity of official acts. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[34] Thus, until and unless there is clear and convincing evidence that rebuts this presumption, we have no option but to rule that said resolution is valid and effective as of 14 September 2007.
	GR No. 181494 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR VELASCO JR., J.
Both the trial and appellate courts made much of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions both with respect to the acts of PO3 Ramos and other PNP personnel at Camp Vicente Lim. To a point, the reliance on the presumptive regularity is tenable. This presumption is, however, disputable and may be overturned by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty;[36] any taint of irregularity vitiates the performance and negates the presumption. And as earlier discussed, the buy bust team committed serious lapses in the handling of the prohibited item from the very start of its operation, the error of which the PNP R-IV command later compounded. The Court need not belabor this matter anew.