Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Cordero vs. Cabatuando

Facts: Petitioner was representing Vicente Salazar in a Court of Agrarian Relations praying for, among others, “reinstatement and reliquidation of past harvest.” A motion to disqualify petitioner as counsel was acted upon by said court, claiming that no attorney from the Mediation Division of the Department of justice could represent as counsel. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and during the pendency of the reconsideration, Congress passed RA 2263 which amended RA 1199 which provides: 

“…In all cases wherein a tenant cannot afford to be represented by counsel, it shall be the duty of the trail attorney of the tenancy mediation division to represent him, upon proper notification by the party concerned, or the court of competent jurisdiction shall assign or appoint counsel de oficio for the indigent tenant…” 

Issue: Whether or not the mentioned section violates the Constitutional provision that no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill. 

Held: The Supreme Court uphold the validity and constitutionality of RA 2263 since its title, AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBER ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES fully complies with the “one-subject rule” which provides the aforementioned amendment which transfers the authority of representation to the Department of Justice through the Mediation Division which is germane to the original purpose of RA 1199. 

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

1 comments: on "Cordero vs. Cabatuando"

Blogger said...

Whether your priority is taste or variety, Vaporfi is will fulfill your vaping needs.

With vape juices which are extracted from food-grade ingredients, their vaping flavors are very smooth and consistent.

Post a Comment