Ley April Louise S. Villanueva
LLB - III
Valerio
E. Kalaw vs Ma. Elena Fernandez (G.R.
No. 166357, January 14, 2015)
Facts:
Valerio Kalaw (Tyrone)
and Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973 and eventually married in Hong Kong
on November 4 1976. They had four children, Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva
(Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after
the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn
Quejano (Jocelyn), who gave birth to a son in March 1983. In may 1985, Malyn
left the conjugal home. In 1990, Tyrone went to the United
States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. He
left his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle
Verde with only a house help and a driver.[8] The
house help would just call Malyn to take care of the children whenever any of
them got sick. Also, in
accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on
weekends. On July 6, 1994 Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He claims that Malyn is psychologically
incapable, that she is irresponsible and immatureas a wife and a mother to
their children. Which is shown in the following acts: 1. she left the children
without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all day and all night;
2. she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early
hours of the following day; 3. she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which
act Tyrone discovered in
flagrante delicto.
Issue
Whether or not Tyrone sufficiently
proved that respondent suffers from psychological incapacity.
Ruling
Psychological incapacity is the
downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital obligations. The burden of proof in psychological incapacity lies in
the party alleging it. He must prove that incapacitated party, based on his or
her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging the essential
obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must be grave, must
have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable. Tyrone failed to
prove that his wife suffers from psychological incapacity. His allegations
which served as premises for the conclusion of the expert witness was both refuted
and unproven. A fair assessment of the facts would show that Malyn was
not totally remiss an incapable of appreciating and performing her marital and
parental duties. Not once did the children state that they were neglected by
their mother. There was no testimony whatsoever that shows abandonment and
neglect of familial duties. What
transpired between the parties as acrimony and, perhaps, infidelity, which may
have constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and
their children. There may be grounds for legal separation, but certainly not
psychological incapacity that voids marriage.
Manila
Electric Company, Alexander S. Deyto and Ruben A. Sapitula vs Rasario Gopez Lim
( October 5, 2010, G.R. No. 184769)
Facts:
An anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering
Office of the Administration building of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).
Involving Rosario G. Lim also known as Cherry Lim (Cherry) an administrative
clerk at MERALCO the letter reads :
MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON
NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL
NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA LOOB.
As a precautionary
measure the MERALCO`s Human Resource ordered issued a memorandum directing her
transfer to MERALCO`s Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa. Cherry appealed her transfer claiming that
her transfer amounted to denial of due process. With no response for her
request, Cherry filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas data alleging that
the continued failure to provide her with the details or information
constitutes a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty, and security
correctible by habeas data.
Issue:
Whether or not an
employee may invoke the remedies provided by the writ of habeas data in a labor
related dispute.
Ruling
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to
protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information,
and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to
enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding
the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security
against abuse in this age of information technology. The Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the
grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefore are vague or doubtful. Employment constitutes a property
right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution.] It
is evident that respondents reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a
legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of ones employment - are
what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over
such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
No comments:
Post a Comment