This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range of acts - from public indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to disorderly conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to society's basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life of the people of society. For example, the issuance or making of a bouncing check is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order that must be abated.[33] As a matter of public policy, the failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.[34] Thus, public nuisances must be abated because they have the effect of interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by members of a community. | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard.[19] Where a party had been afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[20] Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed forfeited without violating the Bill of Rights.[21] | |||||
|
2006-02-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| I/we agree to keep the said goods, manufactured products or proceeds thereof, whether in the form of money or bills, receivables, or accounts separate and capable of identification as property of the BANK.[42] It must be stressed that P.D. No. 115 is a declaration by legislative authority that, as a matter of public policy, the failure of person to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.[43] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contention that they were denied due process is not well- taken. Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[12] | |||||