Section 20. Liability of person signing as agent, and so forth.-  Where the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal, or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, without disclosing his"principal, does not exempt him from personal liability.

Section 16. Delivery; when effectual: when presumed.-Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be; and in such case the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.

Section 15. Incomplete instrument not delivered.-Where an incomplete instrument has not been delivered it will not, if completed and negotiated, without authority, be a valid contract in the hands of any holder, as against any person whose signature was placed thereon before delivery.

Section 52. What constitutes a holder in due course.- A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a)  That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c)   That he took it in good faith and for value; (d)   That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

Section 13.  When date may be inserted.-Where an instrument expressed to be payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the acceptance of an instrument payable at a fixed period after sight is undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the instrument shall be payable accordingly.   The insertion of a wrong date does not avoid the instrument in the hands of a subsequent holder in due course; but as to him, the date so inserted is to be regarded as the true date.

n the course thereof, the couple fell in love and on December 24, 1975, they got married in a civil ceremony solemnized in Iloilo City by Hon. Cornelio G. Lazaro, City Judge of Iloilo.2 Petitioner was then thirty (30) years of age but Bobby Qua being sixteen (16) years old, consent and advice to the marriage was given by his mother, Mrs. Concepcion Ong.

o justify a bona fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

This management prerogative is quite broad and encompassing for it covers hiring, work assignment, working method, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers

She was denied entry

Estrella was hired on July 29, 1994. She met Luisito Zuñiga (Zuñiga), also a co-worker. Petitioners stated that Zuñiga, a married man, got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly could have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign on December 21, 1999

Comia was hired by the company on February 5, 1997. She met Howard Comia, a co-employee, whom she married on June 1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them that pursuant to company policy, one must resign should they decide to get married. Comia resigned on June 30, 2000.

As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; 5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; 7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.2

Respondent National Bureau of Investigation-National Capital Region (NBI-NCR), acting on the Evaluating Panel’s referral of the case to it for further investigation, in turn submitted to the DOJ an investigation report, by a March 8, 2006 transmittal letter (NBI-NCR Report10), with supporting documents recommending the conduct of preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries11 against petitioners and seven others12 as respondents.

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed; and that the respondent, who is probably guilty thereof, should be held for trial.

the DOJ pointed out that the dismissal on the sole basis of the non­ attendance of the petitioner at the clarificatory hearing was erroneous because: firstly, the investigating prosecutor did not state the matters that still needed to be clarified to justify the necessity for her to personally appear that her failure to do the same would cause the dismissal of the complaint; and, secondly, the totality of the evidence presented already established probable cause to indict the respondents for the violation of Article 172, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

dismissal albeit without prejudice of the instant complaint on the ground that the affidavit was not sworn to by the private respondent before a fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath as required by Rule 112, Sec. 3, par. a of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

the instant complaint charging herein petitioners with the crime of use of falsified documents under Article 172, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

claiming that the deed of extra-judicial settlement attached to the motion to dismiss which herein petitioners submitted in Civil Case No. RY2K1-095, RTC, Batangas, Branch 87, is a falsified document

rivate respondent alleged that during her absence and without her knowledge and consent, the subject property was subdivided several times and most of it were parceled out among the defendants in varying areas and registered in their names

Private respondent Aurora A. Sales, a US immigrant who has resided in said country since 1980 and petitioners Benjamin D. Adapon and Teofilo D. Adapon are among the eleven (11) siblings of the late Spouses Pedro H. Adapon and Severina Dimaano-Adapon. Petitioner Ofelia C. Adapon is the spouse of petitioner Benjamin D. Adapon. Upon their demise, Spouses Pedro and Severina Adapon left a parcel of land located in Rosario, Batangas covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-6905 with a total area of 1,352,961 square meters.

(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;

(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale; (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession; (6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)

(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his guardianship; (2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal has been given; (3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;

Article 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except: (1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or (2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under article 191. (1458a)

"Where a check is accepted or certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the bank is estopped to deny the genuineness of the drawers signature and his capacity to issue the instrument. If a drawee bank pays a forged check which was previously accepted or certified by the said bank, it can not recover from a holder who did not participate in the forgery and did not have actual notice thereof. The payment of a check does not include or imply its acceptance in the sense that this word is used in Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.9

Upon the other hand, a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried could be justified as a "bona fide occupational qualification," or BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job would justify the same, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.

basic test30 is to determine if the facts averred would establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime as defined in the law.

In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property

It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership.

The true test of a contractor as was held in the cases of Luzon Stevedoring Co., vs. Trinidad, 43, Phil. 803, 807-808, and La Carlota Sugar Central vs. Trinidad, 43, Phil. 816, 819, would seem to be that he renders service in the course of an independent occupation, representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.

If the article ordered by the purchaser is exactly such as the plaintiff makes and keeps on hand for sale to anyone, and no change or modification of it is made at defendant's request, it is a contract of sale, even though it may be entirely made after, and in consequence of, the defendants order for it

whether or not Engineering is a manufacturer of air conditioning units under Section 185(m), supra, in relation to Sections 183(b) and 194 of the Code, or a contractor under Section 191 of the same Code.

holding respondent company liable to the 3% contractor's tax imposed by Section 191 of the Tax Code instead of the 30% sales tax prescribed in Section 185(m) in relation to Section 194(x) both of the same Code;

30% compensating tax on its importations of equipment and ordinary articles used in the central type air conditioning systems it designed, fabricated, constructed and installed in the buildings and premises of its customers, rather than to the compensating tax of only 7%

examiners Quesada and Catudan reported and recommended