You are viewing christinedeecee

christinedeecee
christinedeecee
... . .::.:::::. .:::: ...

✿ The Love Dump ✿

July 2013
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

  Viewing 0 - 8  
christinedeecee [userpic]

Good day!

It's been a while since I've ventured into LJ again. XD Well, I've updated my profile, changed the layout and hopefully, I'll be able to make posts like I used to.  It's been... YEARS... wow... since my last update. Holy shit.

Anyway, expect more random posts, memories, pictures and whatnots at this point on~
What I'll be talking about in the near future:Collapse )

'Til next time~

Current Location: Office
Current Mood: chipperchipper
Current Music: Fall Out Boy - The Phoenix
christinedeecee [userpic]

I'm just helping out with the information dissemination for a particular online hobby shop based in the Philippines. They have a lot of figures pending for cancellation since a lot of their buyers couldn't pay for them. Below are the list of candidates for cancellation, and eventually figures for sale:

Read more...Collapse )

They also cater to international customers. For more details and/or inquiries, visit their Facebook page: (ext link) or their official website: (ext link)

DISCLAIMER: MyJHobby is not mine. I'm just passing this information on to anyone who would be interested to buy the figures.

Thank you!

Current Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Current Mood: busybusy
christinedeecee [userpic]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

FONTANILLA V. MALIAMAN

G.R. No. L-55963, February 27, 1991

 

Petitioners: Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla

Respondents: Hon. Inocencio D. Maliaman and National Irrigation Administration (NIA)


FACTS  

 On December 1, 1989, the Court rendered a decision declaring National Irrigation Administration (NIA), a government agency performing proprietary functions.  Like an ordinary employer, NIA was held liable for the injuries, resulting in death, of Francisco Fontanilla, son of petitioner spouses Jose and Virginia Fontanilla, caused by the fault and/or negligence of NIA’s driver employee Hugo Garcia; and NIA was ordered to pay the petitioners the amounts of P 12,000 for the death of the victim; P3,389 for hospitalization and burial expenses; P30,000 as moral damages; P8,000 as exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees of 20% of the total award.

The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) maintains, however, that it does not perform solely and primarily proprietary functions, but is an agency of the government tasked with governmental functions, and is therefore not liable for the tortuous act of its driver Garcia, who was not its special agent.  For this, they have filed a motion for reconsideration on January 26, 1990.

NIA believes this bases this on:

PD 552 – amended some provisions

of RA 3601 (the law which created the NIA)

The case of Angat River Irrigation

System v. Angat River Workers’ Union

Angat Case: Although the majority opinion declares that the Angat System, like the NIA, exercised a governmental function because the nature of its powers and functions does not show that it was intended to “bring to the Government any special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit”, a strong dissenting opinion held that Angat River system is a government entity exercising proprietary functions.

The Angat dissenting opinion:  

Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the status of regular employee and could not be removed except for valid cause.

The employment contract of 1971 was executed when the Labor Code of the Philippines had not yet been promulgated, which came into effect some 3 years after the perfection of the contract.

ISSUE 

Whether or not NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, thereby opening it up to the possibility that it may be held liable for the damages caused by its driver, who was not its special agent

HELD: YES

Reasoning the functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. The former involves the exercise of sovereignty and considered as compulsory; the latter connotes merely the exercise of proprietary functions and thus considered as optional.

 The National Irrigation Administration was not created for purposes of local government. While it may be true that the NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does not make the NIA essentially and purely a "government-function" corporation. NIA was created for the purpose of "constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines, including all communal and pump irrigation projects." Certainly, the state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders, but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency, which is the irrigation of lands.

NIA is a government agency invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government, thus is governed by the Corporation Law. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3601 provides:

Sec. 1. Name and Domicile — A body corporate is hereby created which shall be known as the National Irrigation Administration. . . . which shall be organized immediately after the approval of this Act. It shall have its principal seat of business in the City of Manila and shall have representatives in all provinces, for the proper conduct of its business. (Emphasis for emphasis).

 

Besides, Section 2, subsection b of P.D. 552 provides that:

(b) To charge and collect from the beneficiaries of the water from all irrigation systems constructed by or under its administration, such fees or administration charges as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation, maintenance and insurance, and to recover the cost of construction within a reasonable period of time to the extent consistent with government policy; to recover funds or portions thereof expended for the construction and/or rehabilitation of communal irrigation systems which funds shall accrue to a special fund for irrigation development under section 2 hereof;

Unpaid irrigation fees or administration charges shall be preferred liens first, upon the land benefited, and then on the crops raised thereon, which liens shall have preference over all other liens except for taxes on the land, and such preferred liens shall not be removed until all fees or administration charges are paid or the property is levied upon and sold by the National Irrigation Administration for the satisfaction thereof. . . .

The same section also provides that NIA may sue and be sued in court.

It has its own assets and liabilities. It also has corporate powers to be exercised by a Board of Directors. Section 2, subsection (f): . . . and to transact such business, as are directly or indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above powers and objectives, including the power to establish and maintain subsidiaries, and in general, to exercise all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

 

DISPOSITION: The court concluded that the National Irrigation Administration is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Therefore, it may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.


ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 26, 1990 is DENIED WITH FINALITY. The decision of this Court in G.R. No. 55963 and G.R. No. 61045 dated December 1, 1989 is hereby AFFIRMED. 

 

DISSENTING: PADILLA: to say that NIA has opened itself to suit is one thing; to say that it is liable for damages arising from tort committed by its employees, is still another thing.

The state or a government agency performing governmental functions may be held liable for tort committed by its employees only when it acts through a special agent.

Current Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Current Mood: coldcold
christinedeecee [userpic]

CRIMINAL LAW I

THE UNITED STATES v. DIAZ-CONDE

42 Phil. 766 (Outline)
G.R. No. L-18208, February 14, 1922 (Resource)

Plaintiff-appellee: THE UNITED STATES

Defendants-appellants: Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde

What happened:

     On December 30, 1915, Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco accomplished and delivered to the defendants a contract (named ‘Exhibit B’) which stated that the Oliveros and Lianco had borrowed from the latter a sum of three hundred pesos (Php 300), and by virtue of the terms of said contract, Oliveros and Lianco obligated themselves to pay to the defendants interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per month, payable within the first ten days of each and every month, the first payment to be made on the January 10, 1916.

     On May 1, 1916, Act no. 2655 or the Usury Law came into effect.  The law stated that that the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits, […] shall be 12% per annum. Any amount of interest paid or to be paid in excess of that fixed by law is considered usurious, therefore unlawful.

     A complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on May 6, 1921, charging the defendants with a violation of the Usury Law (Act No. 2655). Upon said complaint they were arrested, charged, and pleaded not guilty. On September 1, 1921, the case was finally brought on for trial. At the end of the trial, with consideration to the evidences cited in court, Hon. M. V. del Rosario, judge, found that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P120 and, if they cannot meet their debt obligations, the defendants would suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law. From that sentence each of the defendants made an appeal.


Contention of the State:

The lower court, in the course of its opinion, stated that at the time of the execution and delivery of said contract, there was no law in force in the Philippine Islands that punishes usury. However, the defendants had collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of the Usury Law in the Philippine Islands (Act No. 2655), Therefore, they were guilty in the violation of that law and should be punished in accordance with its provisions.


Contention of the Accused:
(a) The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest was collected was executed before Act No. 2655 was adopted.

 (b) The time that the said contract was made (December 30, 1915),  there was no usury law in force in the Philippine Islands.

(c) Act No. 2655 did not become effective until the May 1, 1916, or four months and a half after the contract was executed.

 (d) The said law could have no retroactive effect or operation

(e) The said law impairs the obligation of a contract.

For all of said reasons the judgment imposed by the lower court should be revoked; that the complaint should be dismissed, and that they should each be discharged from the custody of the law.


Ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court en banc promulgated on February 14, 1922 its ruling on the case of The United States vs Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde (G.R. No. L-18208).  The court has decided that the acts complained of by the defendants did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed.  A law imposing a new penalty, liability or disability, or giving a new right of action, must not be construed as having a retroactive effect.  It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time of the contract was made must govern its interpretation and application.  Laws must be construed prospectively and not retrospectively.  If a contract is legal at its commencement, it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation.  If that were permitted, then the obligations of a contract might be impaired, which is prohibited by Philippine law.

Ex post facto laws, unless they are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in this jurisdiction. Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action, is an ex post facto law. The Legislature is prohibited from adopting a law which will make an act done before its adoption a crime, as in the case of Act No. 2655. A law may be given a retroactive effect in civil action, providing it is curative in character, but ex post facto laws are absolutely prohibited unless its retroactive effect is favorable to the defendant.

The complaint was therefore dismissed, and the defendants were discharged from the custody of the law with costs.

 

Current Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Current Mood: coldcold
christinedeecee [userpic]



COMING SOON!  Will be posted either by June 19 (PM) or June 20 (AM).
Thank you. :-)

DELA CRUZ, Christine S.
LLB 1-C
University of Cordilleras

=================================

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

FONTANILLA V. MALIAMAN

G.R. No. L-55963, February 27, 1991


Petitioners: Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla

Respondents: Hon. Inocencio D. Maliaman and National Irrigation Administration (NIA)




=================================

CRIMINAL LAW I

THE UNITED STATES v. DIAZ-CONDE

42 Phil. 766 (Outline)
G.R. No. L-18208, February 14, 1922 (Resource)

Plaintiff-appellee: THE UNITED STATES

Defendants-appellants: Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde


Current Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Current Mood: chipperchipper
christinedeecee [userpic]

Ahh... Last November 7, 2008 was the first day of school, and I'm very pleased~!  The only class that I've attended was Math 14 under Sir David (yaaaay~! and NOT Sir Sanguyu~! WHEEE! XP) We had a brief discussion on the Pythagorean Theorem and the special cases of the right triangles. ^_^  I had my first recitation (with no grade, but at least I answered it~! Whee~!) that time too. ^_^  Some of my blockmates are also taking up Math 14 like Elaine, Kala, Mara and TinB.  It was also the traditional filling-up-the-classcards as well.  After class, I bought myself a regular zagu (Jamocha Almond with extra pearls) and went home.  It was also the first day for my special visitor... and boy, did it hurt. T_T

My friend Lesley recommended me this site: www.plurk.com  It's also a online journal-type site, except you don't get to type your daily experiences fully unlike LiveJournal.  It's mostly like a timeline of your daily experiences, moods, trips, whatever you wish to "plurk" on your page.  You can also respond to others' plurks as well, and make friends with other plurkers online.  I happen to have one account. ^_^  You can visit mine here: http://www.plurk.com/user/christinedeecee  I'm still new there, so my Karma level's a bit low... and I only know a few people there. ^_^

Tomorrow's the coronation day for Miss Earth 2008.  Who will win?
Sadly, I wasn't able to make it to UP AME '08... Oh well... ^_^
I can still attend conventions during summer. ^_~

Till next time, Bloggie~!

Current Location: at home... ^_^
Current Mood: sillysilly
christinedeecee [userpic]

Kyaa~! How I love using the word meme... Ahahaha.. blame Ding for that.. Ahahaha~! 

Here I go again using the LJ cut...  How I love using this feature.  It keeps the element of surprise (of course, until such time someone decides to open it and view the horrors within... Waaah! Kidding. ^_^).  Anyway, without further ado...

Meme Meme Meme Memo Meme~!Collapse )

Current Location: at home... ^_^
Current Mood: quixoticquixotic
Current Music: Antic Cafe - Super Rabbit
christinedeecee [userpic]

I went to Ding-chan's page and found this... ^_^  I find it cute, so I tried it out... I never knew that I'll be able to make an instant CD cover album because of this... Ahahaha... You guys should try it too... ^_^

Here's how to do it:


The first article title on the page is the name of your band.




The last four words of the very last quote is the title of your album.




The third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

4. Use your graphics program of choice to throw them together, and post the result as a comment in this post. Also, pass it along in your own blog because it’s more amusing that way.

My Own CD Album Cover... ^_^Collapse )

Current Location: at home... ^_^
Current Mood: cheerfulcheerful
Current Music: Whispering Corridors 4: O Sanctum Convivium
  Viewing 0 - 8