This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-31 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Neither can the doctrine of prejudicial question be applied by analogy . The issue in the case filed by Dr. Climaco with the SSC involves the question of whether or not he is an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and subject to the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System. On the contrary, the cases filed by Dr. Climaco before the NLRC involved different issues. In his first complaint,[41] Dr. Climaco sought recognition as a regular employee of the company and demanded payment of his 13th month pay, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, Christmas bonus and all other benefits.[42] The second complaint [43] was for illegal dismissal, with prayer for reinstatement to his former position as company physician of the company's Bacolod Plant, without loss of seniority rights, with full payment of backwages, other unpaid benefits, and for payment of damages. [44] Thus, the issues in the NLRC cases are not determinative of whether or not the SSC should proceed. It is settled that the question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinative of the case before the court.[45] | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void.[19] The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.[20] Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above, respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.[21] | |||||