Holidays and Non-Working Days for 2011 end of Year and Entire 2012

The president had already issued Proclamation 295 which declares Regular Holiday, Special Day, and Non-Working days for 2012. In the remaining days of 2011, the Holidays are as follows:

December 25,Sunday, Christmas Day
December 30, Friday, Rizal Day
December 31, Saturday, Last Day of the Year

There are no declarations to move the above holidays, hence, it will be followed as it is.

The 2012 Holidays are as follows:

A. Regular Holidays                       

New Year’s Day                                January 1 (Sunday)

Maundy Thursday                             April 5

Good Friday                                     April 6

Araw ng Kagitingan                           April 9 (Monday)

               

Labor Day                                        May 1 (Tuesday)

Independence Day                            June 12 (Tuesday)

National Heroes Day                         August 27 (Last Monday of August)

Bonifacio Day                                   November 30 (Friday)

Christmas Day                                  December 25 (Tuesday)               

Rizal Day                                          December 30 (Sunday)

               

B. Special (Non-Working) Days

Chinese New Year                            January 23 (Monday)

Ninoy Aquino Day                           August 21 (Tuesday)

All Saints Day                                  November 1 (Thursday)

Additional special (non-working) day      November 2 (Friday)

Last Day of the Year                              December 31 (Monday

C. Special Holiday (for all schools)          

EDSA Revolution Anniversary    

February 25 (Saturday)

There is no schedule yet for the observance of Eid’l Fitr and Eidul Adha  but National Commission on Muslim Filipinos are instructed to inform the Office of the President of respective Holidays when determined.

Below is the full content of the Proclamation

PROCLAMATION NO. 295

DECLARING THE REGULAR HOLIDAYS, SPECIAL (NON-WORKING) DAYS, AND SPECIAL HOLIDAY (FOR ALL SCHOOLS) FOR THE YEAR 2012

WHEREAS, Republic Act (RA) No. 9492, dated July 24, 2007, amended Section 26, Chapter 7, Book I of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, by declaring certain days (specific or movable) as special or regular holidays;

WHEREAS, RA No. 9492 provides that holidays, except those which are religious in nature, are moved to the nearest Monday unless otherwise modified by law, order or proclamation;

WHEREAS, RA No. 9849 provides that the Eidul Adha shall be celebrated as a national holiday;

WHEREAS, the EDSA People Power Revolution, which restored and ushered political, social and economic reforms in the country, serves as an inspiration to Filipinos everywhere as a nation and as a people;

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2012, the Chinese nationals all over the world will celebrate Spring Festival, popularly known as the Chinese New Year, which is one of the most revered and festive events celebrated not only in China but also in the Philippines by both Chinese Filipinos and ordinary Filipinos as well; and the joint celebration is a manifestation of our solidarity with our Chinese Filipino brethren who have been part of our lives in many respects as a country and as a people; 23 January 2012 may be declared as a special (non-working) day without detriment to public interest;

WHEREAS, Friday, 2 November 2012, falling between Thursday, 1 November 2012 (All Saints Day) and Saturday, has been traditionally declared a special (non-working) day throughout the country;

WHEREAS, to give full opportunity to our people to properly observe All Saints Day with all its religious fervor which invariably requires them to travel to and from different regions in the country, Friday, 2 November 2012, may be declared as a special (non-working) day without detriment to public interest;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as President of the Philippines, do hereby declare:

SECTION 1. The following regular holidays and special days for the year 2012 shall be observed in the country:

A. Regular Holidays                       

New Year’s Day                                January 1 (Sunday)

Maundy Thursday           April 5

Good Friday                       April 6

Araw ng Kagitingan         April 9 (Monday)

               

Labor Day                            May 1 (Tuesday)

Independence Day         June 12 (Tuesday)

National Heroes Day       August 27 (Last Monday of August)

Bonifacio Day                     November 30 (Friday)

Christmas Day                   December 25 (Tuesday)               

Rizal Day                              December 30 (Sunday)

               

B. Special (Non-Working) Days

Chinese New Year           January 23 (Monday)

Ninoy Aquino Day            August 21 (Tuesday)

All Saints Day                     November 1 (Thursday)

Additional special (non-working) day      November 2 (Friday)

Last Day of the Year        December 31 (Monday

C. Special Holiday (for all schools)          

EDSA Revolution Anniversary    

February 25 (Saturday)

SECTION 2. The proclamations declaring national holidays for the observance of Eid’l Fitr and Eidul Adha shall hereafter be issued after the approximate dates of the Islamic holidays have been determined in accordance with the Islamic calendar (Hijra) or the lunar calendar, or upon Islamic astronomical calculations, whichever is possible or convenient. To this end, the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) shall inform the Office of the President on which day the holiday shall fall.

SECTION 3. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall promulgate the implementing guidelines for this Proclamation.

SECTION 4. This Proclamation shall take effect immediately.

SECTION 5. This Proclamation shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of thePhilippines to be affixed.

Done in the City ofManila, this 24th day of November in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Eleven.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

Executive Secretary

CGRLAW & Associates
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email: info@cgrlaw.tk 

    claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

TERMINATION OF ALL NURSE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

The Department of Health (DOH), through Memorandum No. 2011-0238, ordered all DOH Hospitals to stop any form of nurse volunteer programs since it is not in accordance with RA 9418.

BAR OPS BANNED IN UST VICINITY

'Bar Ops' Within Vicinity of UST Banned

(sc.judiciary.gov.ph)

Bar operations, such as setting up of streamers, sendoffs, and cheering squads, are banned within the vicinity of the University of Santo Tomas, the venue of the 2011 Bar examinations during November 6, 13, 20, and 27.

This was announced by Supreme Court Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa in a Bar briefing for superintendents and supervisors of the Bar examinations at the SC Old Session Hall this afternoon.

Atty. Layusa also revealed that 2011 Bar Chairperson Justice Roberto A. Abad has directed that the streets surrounding the UST campus (Dapitan St., P. Noval St., España Boulevard, and Lacson Avenue) remain open to traffic for all four Sundays of the Bar examinations.

To maintain peace and order during the Bar examinations, she said that the Court will be assisted by uniformed police and plainclothes agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Six thousand two hundred (6,200) law graduates have been cleared by the Court to take this year's Bar Examinations, which for the first time will be held in November as well as feature multiple-choice questions. The list of admitted Bar applicants can be viewed at sc.judiciary.gov.ph.

Sent from my iPad2

CGRLAW & Associates

Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408

101 Export Drive, Makati City

Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210

Mobile: +63 918 948 6092

email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

                   claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

 

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.

PROCLAMATION NO. 276: , 7 NOVEMBER 2011, AS A REGULAR HOLIDAY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IN OBSERVANCE OFEIDUL ADHA (FEAST OF SACRIFICE)

MALACAÑAN PALACE

MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROCLAMATION NO. 276

DECLARING MONDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2011, AS A REGULAR HOLIDAY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IN OBSERVANCE OFEIDUL ADHA (FEAST OF SACRIFICE)

WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 9849 provides that Eidul Adha shall be celebrated as a regular holiday;

WHEREAS, Eidul Adha is one of the two greatest feasts of Islam;

WHEREAS, the date of the festival based on the declaration made by Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body is on 6 November 2011;

WHEREAS, the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) recommended that the observance of Eidul Adha be on 7 November 2011 and the Eidul Adha prayer held on 6 November 2011;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare Monday, 7 November 2011, as a regular holiday throughout the country, in observance of Eidul Adha (Feast of Sacrifice).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 20th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Eleven.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR.

Executive Secretary

OCTOBER 31, 2011: SPECIAL DAY PER PROCLAMATION NO. 265

MALACAÑAN PALACE

MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROCLAMATION NO. 265

DECLARING MONDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2011, AS A SPECIAL (NON-WORKING) DAY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY

WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 84, dated 20 December 2010, declared Tuesday, 1 November 2011, as a special (non-working) day;

WHEREAS, Monday, 31 October 2011, falling between Sunday and Tuesday, 1 November 2011 (All Saints Day), has been traditionally declared a special (non-working) day throughout the country;

WHEREAS, to give full opportunity to our people to properly observe the day with all its religious fervor which invariably requires them to travel to and from different regions of the country. Monday, 31 October 2011, may be declared as a special (non-working) day without detriment to public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare Monday, 31 October 2011, as a special (non-working) day throughout the country.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 10^th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Eleven.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR,

Executive Secretary

---

CGRLAW & Associates
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

   claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.

LABOR UPDATE: SPECIAL LEAVE BENEFITS FOR WOMEN and APPLICATION OF PAYMENT OF COLA ON HOLIDAYS

SPECIAL LEAVE BENEFITS FOR WOMEN

Under DO No.112-11, series of 2011, Department of Labor issued its guidelines on the Implementation of RA 9710 or the "Magna Carta of Women."

What is the Special Leave Benefits for Women?

This refers to entitlement of a female employee to TWO (2) MONTHS leave WITH PAY following surgery caused by gynecological disorders.

What is a Gynecological disorder?

This refers to disorders that would require surgical procedures such as, but not limited to, dilatation and curettage and those involving female reproductive organs such as the vagina, cevix, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breast, adnexa and pelvic floor. It also include hysterectomy, ovariectomy, and mastectomy.

Is cesarian birth delivery entitled to the Special Leave?

Although cesarian delivery is a surgery, it is not considered as a disorder to be entitled to the benefits.

Who are entitled to special leave benefits?

Any female employee, regardless of age and civil status, provided that (a) she has rendered at least six (6) months continuous aggregate employment service for the last twelve (12) months prior to surgery. (b) the surgery due to gynecological disorders is certified by a competent physician.

Where and when to file special leave?

There is no specific period given by the guidelines but it must be within a reasonable period of time from the expected date of surgery, or when there is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) the period provided by CBA, or the company may provide it in its rules and regulations.

What is the two months benefits pay?

Two months benefits pay will be based on her gross monthly compensation, i.e. monthly basic pay plus mandatory allowances.

Is the benefit convertible to cash?

NO (except when provided for in CBA).

APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL 22 PESOS COLA ON HOLIDAYS

The P22 Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) under Wage order No. NCR-16 shall be INCLUDED in the payment for regular holidays, WHETHER WORKED OT UNWORKED. It is, however, NOT INCLUDED in the computation for overtime pay, premium pay, nightshift differential pay, 13^th month pay and retirement pay.

On regular Holiday

Every employee covered by the Holiday Pay Rule is entitled to the minimum wage (daily basic wage and COLA). This means that the employee is entitled to at least 100% of the minimum wage even if he did not report for work provided he is present or is on leave of absence with pay on the workday immediately preceding the holiday.

Work performed on that day merits at least twice (200%) of the minimum wage.

On other wage-related benefits

The COLA shall not be included in the computation of overtime pay, premium pay, night shift differential, 13^th month pay and retirement pay.

---

CGRLAW & Associates
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

   claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES, WHEN BROKEN MAY CAUSE AQUITTAL

In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.

Further, considering the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise, there is a need to comply strictly with procedure in its seizure and custody. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Evident from the records of this case, however, is the fact that the members of the buy-bust team did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Nothing in the testimony of Solero, Commander of Task Force Ubash, would show that the procedure was complied with. He even admitted that he has not seen the inventory of the confiscated drugs allegedly prepared by the police officers and that he only read a little of R.A. No. 9165:

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, did you prepare an inventory insofar as the apprehension of the shabu allegedly taken from the suspect?

A: That is the work of the Investigator, sir, we were just after the buy-bust operation.

Q: Was there any inventory prepared insofar as the operation is concerned?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where is that inventory?

A: At the Investigation Section, sir.

Q: Are you sure that there was indeed an inventory prepared?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, you are telling this court that the shabu that was allegedly taken from Jay Lorena was endorsed to the Investigation Section?

A: To the desk officer on duty first for the recording.

Q: Do you know what is investigation, Mr. Witness?

A: The details, the money involved including the suspect.

Q: This case was filed in the year 2003 and I suppose you are already aware of Rep. Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And the persons who prepare the inventory are the persons who apprehended, are you aware of that?

A: Yes sir, but the desk officer is also a member of the police station.

Q: So, you turned over the shabu to the desk officer?

A: Yes sir, including the suspect.

Q: And to your own knowledge, there was an inventory prepared by the desk officer?

A: The Investigation Section, sir.

Q: And in that inventory, Insp. Del Socorro signed?

A: No, sir.

Q: Or the local elected official signed that inventory?

A: I did not see the inventory, sir.

Q: So, you are talking about a particular document which you have not seen?

A: But I know it was inventoried.

Q: Now, during the supposed buy-bust operation, upon apprehending Jay Lorena and the shabu that your group allegedly taken from him, was there any photograph taken?

A: None, sir.

Q: Was there any police officer from the Pasacao Police Station or even the Chief of Police himself instructed your group about the requirements prescribed under Rep. Act No. 9165?

A: None, sir.

Q: But personally you are aware of Rep. Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Have you read that?

A: A little.

Nonetheless, People v. Pringas teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal.  Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.  We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. As provided in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]

x x x x  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen seized from the accused. This function is performed by the "chain of custody" requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court.  Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines "chain of custody" as follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous   drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature  of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]

In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation.  We have held that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs.  There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.  While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.  Hence, every link must be accounted for.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant., G.R. No. 184954, 2011 Jan 10, 3rd Division)

CGRLAW & Associates
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

   claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk/

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.

---

CORRECTION OF ENTRIES (RA 9048 and RULE 108)

It must be stressed that RA9048 applies only to correction of clerical or typographical error in entry or in first name. If the correction is in the surname, it will not apply. If the correction is sex, age, birthplace, citizenship, it will not apply. If the change will involve change of legitimacy or citizenship, it will not apply.

There is no court proceedings in the application of RA9048. The petition will be filed in the Local Civil Registrar where the record is located or registered.

On the other hand, if the change is substantial including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, there is a need for adversarial proceeding and the petition must be filed in court under Rule 108.

Republic Act 9048

Republic Act (RA) 9048 authorizes the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general to correct a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change the first name or nickname in the civil register without the need of a judicial order.

Ra 9048 amends Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which prohibit the change of name or surname of a person, or any correction or change of entry in a civil register without judicial order.

RA 9048 allows these corrections:

Correction of clerical or typographical errors in an entry in civil registry documents, except corrections involving the change in sex, age, nationality and status of a person

(A clerical or typographical error refers to an obvious mistake committed in clerical work, either in writing, copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name or misspelled place of birth and the like, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records.)

Change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document under certain grounds specified under the law through administrative process.

What are the conditions under RA 9048 that the petitioner needs to comply with?

1.       The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

2.       The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or,

3.       The change will avoid confusion.

RULE 108

What entries may be subject to cancellation (section 2)?

Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected:

(a)    births

(b)   marriage

(c)    deaths

(d)   legal separations

(e)   judgments of annulments of marriage

(f)     judgments of declaring marriages void from the beginning

(g)    legitimations

(h)   adoptions

(i)      election, loss, recovery of citizenship

(j)     civil interdiction

(k)    judicial determination of filiation

(l)      change of name

The proceedings must be adversarial (Republic v. Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo, February 2, 2011). Appropriate adversary proceeding is one having opposing parties, contested as distinguished from ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.

Some Cases for Reference:

• ·         Julian denied the marriage of his parents and denies his legitimacy and filed a petition to change his name removing his father’s last name. The petition was denied since the change he seeks will affect his legal status in relation to his parents. “Changes that will affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be answered after appropriate adversary proceedings (Labayo-Rowe v. Republic)”

• ·         Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar to Mercadera’s case which recognize the same a harmless error.  In Yu v. Republic, it was held that “to change ‘Sincio’ to ‘Sencio’ which merely involves the substitution of the first vowel ‘i’ in the first name into the vowel ‘e’ amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error.”  In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic,  it was held that the change of petitioner’s name from “Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu” to “Emperatriz Labayo” was a mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary proceeding was appropriate.  In Republic v. Court of Appeals, Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto, the correction involved the substitution of the letters “ch” for the letter “d,” so that what appears as “Midael” as given name would read “Michael.”  In the latter case, this Court, with the agreement of the Solicitor General, ruled that the error was plainly clerical, such that, “changing the name of the child from ‘Midael C. Mazon’ to ‘Michael C. Mazon’ cannot possibly cause any confusion, because both names can be read and pronounced with the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig).”

• ·         In this case, the use of the letter “a” for the letter “e,” and the deletion of the letter “i,” so that what appears as “Marilyn” would read as “Merlyn” is patently a rectification of a name that is clearly misspelled.  The similarity between “Marilyn” and “Merlyn” may well be the object of a mix- up that blemished Mercadera’s Certificate of Live Birth until her adulthood, thus, her interest to correct the same (Republic v. Merlyn Mercadera, December 8, 2010).

REFUSAL TO TRANSFER IS AN ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT WARRANTS DISMISSAL AND NON-ENTITLEMENT TO SEPARATION PAY

In the case of Juliet Gapacible v. Multimed Industries Incorporated (G.R. No. 178903, May 30, 2011), the court ruled that failure to comply with transfer order amounted to insubordination.

Juliet is the Assistant Area Sales Manager of the company in Cebu City. Since there was an ongoing reorganization in the company, she was advised that she would be transferred to its head office in Pasig City. Instead of heeding the order, Juliet, through her lawyer, Atty. Montenegro, demanded payment of separation pay and stated that he had advised his client to remain in her current position in Cebu. The company sent several letter-Memo ordering the transfer. Finally, Juliet was terminated for insubordination. Consequently, Juliet filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Court ruled that Juliet was dismissed for willfully disobeying the lawful order of her employer to transfer from Cebu to Pasig City. The Court reasoned that Juliet knew and accepted respondent company's policy on transfers when she was hired and was in fact even transferred many times from one area of operations to another.

xxx

Clearly, petitioner's adamant refusal to transfer, coupled with her failure to heed the order for her to return the company vehicle, more importantly, allowing her counsel to write letters couched in harsh language to her superiors unquestionable show that she was guilty of insubordination, hence not entitled to the award of separation pay.

---

CGRLAW & ASSOCIATES
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

   claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (annulment) through Psychological Incapacity

There are several grounds to declare marriage null. It could be by reason of absence of essential requisites of marriage like age, license, etc. or against public policy, or psychological incapacity, among others.

One of the most popular is psychological incapacity. This is a state of being of the husband or wife which hinders them to permanently perform their marital obligations to each other. In a recent case, Danilo Aurelio v. Corazon Aurelio, June 6, 2011, G.R. No. 175367, it provides an excerpt on the allegations in the petition and provides the reason why it complies with the substance of the law (Molina Doctrine).

x x x  The said petition alleged, inter alia, that both husband and wife are psychologically incapable of performing and complying with their essential marital obligations.  Said psychological incapacity was existing prior and at the time of the marriage.  Said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial support from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife.  The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife.  His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition.  He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family.  He refused to foot the household bills and provide for his family's needs.  He exhibited arrogance.  He was completely insensitive to the feelings of his wife.  He liked to humiliate and embarrass his wife even in the presence of their children.

 

          Vida Aurelio, on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely.  Her feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day experiences.  Her tolerance for boredom was very low.  She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment.  She cannot delay to gratify her needs.  She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants.  Self-indulgence lifts her spirits immensely.  Their hostility towards each other distorted their relationship.  Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life led to the breakdown of their marriage.  Private respondent manifested psychological aversion to cohabit with her husband or to take care of him.  The psychological make-up of private respondent was evaluated by a psychologist, who found that the psychological incapacity of both husband and wife to perform their marital obligations is grave, incorrigible and incurable.  Private respondent suffers from a Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features; whereas petitioner suffers from passive aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder that renders him immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage.

Clearly, although not required, it is essential to have an expert opinion of a Psychologist to show the disorder or abnormality suffered by the party. In this case, the husband opposed the petition and questioned the substance of the petition and alleged that there is no cause of action. The Court ruled in the following manner:

A review of the petition shows that it observed the requirements in Republic vs. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 198), otherwise known as the Molina Doctrine. There was allegation of the root cause of the psychological incapacity of both the petitioner and the respondent contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition. The manifestation of juridical antecedence was alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition. The allegations constituting the gravity of psychological incapacity were alleged in paragraph 9 (a to l) of the petition. The incurability was alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition. Moreover, the clinical finding of incurability was quoted in paragraph 15 of the petition. There is a cause of action presented in the petition for the nullification of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Whether or not the allegations are meritorious depends upon  the proofs to be presented by both parties. This, in turn, will entail the presentation of evidence which can only be done in the hearing on the merits of the case. If the Court finds that there are (sic) preponderance of evidence to sustain a nullification, then the cause of the petition shall fail. Conversely, if it finds, through the evidence that will be presented during the hearing on the merits, that there are sufficient proofs to warrant nullification, the Court shall declare its nullity

The court denied the opposition of the husband since the Petition complied with the requirements of the law. All in all, except from having the proper grounds of nullity, it is likewise important that the Petition to be submitted in the court be properly pleaded with all the requirements of law. 

---

CLAUDIO GRIPAL REQUINO & ASSOCIATES

Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.