Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Go, Cristy Lee

Maliones, Evanne Grace

Ramos, Ma. Nia-Josel
July 23, 2018

Session 8
Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno
G.R. No. 237428 (June 19, 2018)

Sereno claims that since an impeachment complaint has already been filed against
her with the house of representatives, she has become an impeachable officer and thus,
may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings.

The law states that an impeachable officer may only be removed from office through

The legal issue rests on whether an impeachment is the only means to remove an
impeachable officer.

The court held that impeachment is not the only means of removing an impeachable
officer from office.

The provision which is the subject matter of this states that certain officers listed in
the provision may be removed from office on impeachment. The use of the word “may”
connotes a possibility that other means of removing officers from their office is available.

Since the law is not restrictive in its provision with the use of the word “may,” if
other causes of removal are available, then other modes of ousting officers can likewise
be availed.
Romeo A. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno
A.C. No. 10689 (January 8, 2018)

Agno executed and notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the
presence of the affiant.

The law states that notaries public are prohibited from executing and notarizing
fictitious documents. Particularly in notarizing a document, the person must personally
appear before the notary public.

The legal issue rests on whether Agno is administratively liable.

The Court held that Agno is administratively liable since she failed to obey the law
by issuing and notarizing the document without the affiant personally appearing before

The personal appearance of the affiant is mandatory to verify the truthfulness of the
document and that it is entered voluntarily.

The public’s confidence on the integrity of notarial acts would be impaired if notaries
public would not observe due diligence in the performance of their duties.
International Academy of Management and Economics vs. Litton and Company, Inc.
G.R. No. 191525 (December 13, 2017)

International Academy of Management and Economics (I/AME) claims that the

Court of Appeals erred in levying a piece of real property in their name in order to
execute judgment against their President, Atty. Emmanuel Santos.

The law states that a corporation is an artificial being invested with a personality
separate and distinct from those of the stockholders.

The legal issue rests on whether or not I/AME's property should be considered
separate from those of Santos.

The court held that I/AME's property cannot be considered separate once equitable
limitations are breached.

The corporation is just an alter ego of Santos and for reasons of public policy, a
corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud,
illegality or inequity committed against third persons.

Separateness of the corporation and the stockholders must be established to justify

wrong, to protect fraud and to embody good faith and honesty in the use of corporate
privilege for legitimate purposes.