This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| For such right to be available to respondents, they would have to show first that their mother: (a) predeceased Udiaan; (b) is incapacitated to inherit; or (c) was disinherited, if Udiaan died testate.[33] However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, nothing in the records would show that the right of representation is available to respondents. Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly found that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant case. It is well-settled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record,[34] as in this case. | |||||
|
2015-06-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Came the anniversary, officers and members sported t-shirts with inscriptions "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!" at the beginning of the Fun Run at Victoria Plaza at around 6:30 in the morning and continued to wear the same inside the premises of the DCWD office during the office hours. Also, one of the members of the Board of Directors of NAMADACWAD Gregorio S. Cagula (Cagula), with the help of some of its members, attached similar inscriptions and posters of employees' grievances to a post in the motor pool area, an area not among the officially designated places[5] for posting of grievances as prescribed by DCWD's Office Memorandum[6] dated 8 February 1996 and pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 33,[7] Series of 1994 (MC No. 33).[8] | |||||