Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Digests

URSUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996  Facts Petitioner Cesario Ursua was convicted for violation of Sec. 1 of CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085 otherwise known as ―An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases‖ by the RTC of Davao City which was affirmed by the CA. Allegedly petitioner when asked by his counsel to take his letter of request to the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firm‘s messenger Oscar Perez had personal matters to attend to, instead of writing his name wrote the name ―Oscar Perez‖ when he was requested to sign. However, Loida Kahulugan who gave him the copy of complaint was able to know through Josefa Amparo that petitioner is not Oscar Perez. Loida reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that petitioner be accordingly charged. Petitioner comes for review of his conviction to the SC as he reasserts his innocence.  Issue Whether or not petitioner Cesario Ursua should be acquitted on the ground that he...

FLORESCA vs. PHILEX MINING CORP. G.R. No. L-30642, April 30, 1985  Facts Floresca et al are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Philex), who, while working at its copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground. Floresca et al moved to claim their benefits pursuant to the Workmen‘s Compensation Act before the Workmen‘s Compensation Commission. They also petitioned before the regular courts and sue Philex for additional damages. Philex invoked that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the WCA.  Issue Whether or not Floresca et al...