Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179408 2014-03-05	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ BRION, J.
On January 13, 2009 (or while the present petition was pending in court), the Court En Banc unanimously granted PLDT's motion for reconsideration.[39] The Court ruled that even prior to the passage of the RPC, jurisprudence is settled that "any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft."[40] This jurisprudence, in turn, applied the prevailing legal meaning of the term "personal property" under the old Civil Code as "anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property)."[41] PLDT's telephone service or its business of providing this was appropriable personal property and was, in fact, the subject of appropriation in an ISR operation, facilitated by means of the unlawful use of PLDT's facilities.
	GR No. 161106 2014-01-13	WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu only take issue with categorizing the earnings and business as personal properties of PLDT. However, in Laurel v. Abrogar,[49] we have already held that the use of PLDT's communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft of its telephone services and business: x x x "[I]nternational long distance calls," the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
	GR No. 170217 2012-12-10	HPS SOFTWARE v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Undaunted, PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. This motion was acted upon favorably by the Court En Banc in a Resolution[39] dated January 13, 2009 thereby reconsidering and setting aside the February 27, 2006 Decision. In resolving PLDT's motion, the Court En Banc held that: The acts of "subtraction" include: (a) tampering with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service; (b) tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c) using or enjoying the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service.