This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is too late in the day for LANDTRADE to raise the issue of prescription of Civil Case No. 4452 for the first time before this Court. In this jurisdiction, the defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Such defense may be waived, and if it was not raised as a defense in the trial court, it cannot be considered on appeal, the general rule being that the Appellate Court is not authorized to consider and resolve any question not properly raised in the lower court.[114] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense.[7] The claim of accused-appellant that she received no payment and that the payments were handed directly over to her co-accused fails in the face of the testimony of the complainants that accused-appellant was the one who received the money. In spite of the receipts having been issued by her co-accused, the trial court found that payments were directly made to accused-appellant, and this finding was upheld by the CA. Nothing is more entrenched than the rule that where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial court are affirmed by the CA, these are final and conclusive upon this Court.[8] And even if it were true that no money changed hands, money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of "recruitment and placement" in the Labor Code includes the phrase, "whether for profit or not." We held in People v. Jamilosa that it was "sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment."[9] Accused-appellant made representations that complainants would receive employment abroad, and this suffices for her conviction, even if her name does not appear on the receipts issued to complainants as evidence that payment was made. | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1431 of the Civil Code, through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it. Expounding on the principle of estoppel, we held in Springsun Management Systems Corporation v. Camerino[19] that "where a party, by his deed or conduct, has induced another to act in a particular manner, estoppel effectively bars the former from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that causes loss or injury to the latter."[20] | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This is consistent with our conclusion in the very recent case Springsun Management Systems Corporation v. Camerino[45] wherein we affirmed the decision of the trial court:The only evidence of defendants (now petitioners) shows that the former owner, Victoria Homes, Inc., sold the lands covered by TCT Nos. (289237) S-6135 and (289236) S-35855 to defendant Springsun Management Systems Corporation on February 9, 1983 in the amount of P7,223,799.00 (Exh. '4'). The sale was made without notifying the lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform as mandated by Section 12 of R.A. 3844 despite the fact that the Deed of Sale was duly registered with the Register of Deeds on April 11, 1983 that cancelled the titles in the name of Victoria Homes, Inc. and TCT Nos. 120542 and 120541 were issued on the same date in the name of defendant Springsun. | |||||