ART. 2, NCC; EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS;   General Rule: ·         Laws shall take effect   after 15 days ·         following the completion of their publication either in the o    in the Official Gazette, or o   in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,  Exception: ·      unless it is otherwise provided. (Solely refers to the 15-day period and not to the req. of publication.   Publication under EO 292 (Administrative Code) Sec. 18. When Laws Take Effect. [ [1] ] Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided.   Sec. 24.  Contents. [ [2] ] There shall be published in the Official Gazette all legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature; all executive and administrative issuances of general application; decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, or othe

SERRANO V. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC. GR No. 167614 - March 24, 2009  FACTS: Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a POEA-approved contract of employment for 12 months, as Chief Officer, with the basic monthly salary of US$1,400, plus $700/month overtime pay, and 7 days paid vacation leave per month.   On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, Serrano was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000 upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.   Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make Serrano Chief Officer. Hence, Serrano refused to stay on as second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998, serving only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpi

Contracts of Adhesion   are one in which one of the contracting parties imposes a ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing. ( Polotan,Sr. vs. Honorable CA, et al., 1988 ) Some Cases related thereto: Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. Tecson Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. John Bordman Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc Citibank, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) vs. Modesta R. Sabeniano Citibank, N.A., et al. vs. M. R. Sabeniano Sps. Raul & Amalia Panlilio Vs. Citibank, N.A. Equitable PCI Bank vs. Ng Sheurig Ngor

G.R. No. 187023; November 17, 2010  IMANI, vs. MBTC  Doctrines: Indeed, all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal.  However, for this presumption to apply, the party who invokes it must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non to the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. Thus, the time when the property was acquired is material.  The basic rule of evidence is that unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify on their affidavits, such affidavits must be rejected for being hearsay.  In the same vein, the photocopies of the checks cannot be given any probative value.  a photocopy of a document has no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence. FACTS:  (Petitioner) Umani signed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in favor of respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank), with Cesar P. Dazo, Nieves Dazo, Bene

G.R. No. 252118 [1] |  De Leon v. Duterte, Resolution dated  MAY 8, 2020 DOCTRINES: 1.   Mandamus  is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required to be done when it or he/she:  (i)   unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or  (ii)   unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law.   2.   It bears stressing that for a petition for  mandamus  to sufficiently allege a cause of action, petitioner must satisfy the following elements:  (i)   the legal right of the plaintiff;  (ii)   the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and  (iii)   an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right. [2]  The cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly o