Codal Provisions in Palm

I love Palm. They're versatile and handy. I can play games, read books, organize, schedule(or an attempt thereof) and store my files. What's more, I have the codal provisions stored in my Palm. So I don't have to bring my bulky codals, I just bring along my Palm with me for quick reference.

So if you have a Palm and the Isilo program, and you want to store your codals in your Palm, just click on the following links to download the provisions.

1987 Constitution
Civil Code
Rules of Court
Revised Penal Code
Labor Code
Corporate Code
Local Government Code

Caveat: some of the laws may not be updated since these were created back in 2005.

The Congress is in Siesta

Have you heard the latest news? There are proposals that members House of Representatives be padlocked inside the session hall. The reason: some Congressmen start to disappear 30 minutes after the roll call. GMA News reported yesterday that out of the 240 or so Congressmen, an average of 160-180 attend a regular session. But that is not the shocking news. What is appalling is that only 40 or so Congressmen are still present at the end of the day! Only 1 out of 6!

What is this, highschool? The most delinquent class I've been in had an absence of 20% on the average. Only a select few left in the middle of a class and never came back again. And these are the students of the thick-faced, i-don't-give-a-damn-if-I-get-kicked-out-or-not-since-I'm-not-paying-for-my-
tuition-anyway variety.

But that is a poor analogy, you might say. There is no comparing between school and Congress. Congress is serious business.

But that is precisely the point. Congress IS serious business. It should not be taken lightly. Aren't we deep in sh*t enough for Congressmen not to care? Do the congressman have to be offered an envelope containing P500k every time just to lure them to Batasan? What callousness.

What's new, you ask? This is Congress, after all. Maybe it's not news after all.

Take a Break: I Resent That

"All lawyers are douche bags!" declared a man in a bar.

"I resent that!" someone replied.

"Why, are you a lawyer?"

"No, I'm douche bag!"

Book Review: Catindig's Notes on Selected Commercial Laws

Commercial Law is one of the harder subjects to study for the bar. Aside from the big four (Corporation, Transportation, Insurance and Negotiable Instruments), Commercial Law includes may special laws. In fact, the codal provisions of Commercial Law consist of two volumes, as opposed to the other bar subjects, which only have one each. And because of the number of special laws for Commercial Law, it won't be surprising if some bar takers have not yet encountered one (or two, or three) of these special laws.

This is where Atty. Tristan Catindig's book, Notes on Selected Commercial Laws, comes in handy.

Published in 2003, Atty. Catindig's book covers over 20 special laws, including banking laws; intellectual property; warehouse laws; letters of credits; trust receipts; mortgage; and special corporation laws.

This is not your ordinary law book. The author gives the basics of each law in simple fashion, to help readers understand the topics better - like Commercial Law for Dummies (as one lawyer puts it). The book is so well-written that it almost makes reading Commercial Law enjoyable.

Atty. Catindig favors the Q & A format. Case laws that are added give life to the laws, while sample questions gauge the reader if he has actually grasped the subjects or not.

One unique aspect of the book is that it has lawyer jokes section after the end of each chapter. The section is aptly entitled Take a Break.

But this does not in any way mean that this book does not mean business. Atty. Catindig understands the students' needs, which is a law book that is understandable. A law book does not have to be archaic to be taken seriously. Atty. Catindig is obviously well aware of this fact.

The bad news is that the book is already out of print (or so I heard).

The good news is that Atty. Catindig is reportedly releasing a 2008 edition in time for the bar.

Even better news, Atty Catindig is reportedly releasing two more books: A Tax Law book and another Commercial Law book, this time dealing with the major four.

I, for one, am eagerly anticipating their release.


Disclaimer: I am not in any way related to Atty. Catindig, nor am I connected with Verde Publications, which is the publisher of the Book.

Impeaching the Supreme Court

Atty. Elly Pamatong filed an impeachment complaint against all the members of the Supreme Court due to obstruction of justice (setting exhorbitant legal fees); conspiracy to subvert the Republic (swearing into office GMA); demonstration of impeachable mediocrity, negligence, and incompetence ("unlawfully changing his middle name from "Velez" to "Chavez"); and malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Hmmm... So where do I start?

First, all of the grounds stated by Pamatong are not impeachable offenses. He can stretch his arguments and say that the SC justices committed culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust. And I emphasize, the operative word here is "stretch."

Second, you can impeach a person, but you cannot impeach an institution. Pamatong cited one of the grounds that the SC legitimized the presidency of Gloria in 2001. But this cannot be taken against the Supreme Court as a body. It must be noted that only a handful of the members of the 2001 body legitimizing the GMA presidency are still in the present SC. If Pamatong wants to overhaul the membership of the SC, he must file a separate complaint for each member, and cite the impeachable grounds committed by each member. Hindi pwedeng pakyaw dito sir, kung gusto niyong maseryoso.

Third, this is the same Pamatong who was declared a nuisance candidate in 2004, and rightly so. The same Pamatong who was named as a "Spike Boy" by scattering steel spikes on the streets of Metro Manila. The same Pamatong who was arrested in Laguna for carrying an M203 grenade launcher, an M-16 rifle, an Intratech machine pistol, two caliber .45 automatics and assorted ammunition. The same Pamatong who just recently filed a case against Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales for alleged human right violations, forcing people to believe catholic doctrines, swindling (tithes or offerings solely goes to the Pope based in Vatican) and for noise disturbance (loud speakers mounted in churches).

But then again, I haven't read the impeachment complaint in its entirety. Maybe he actually has valid arguments. Now all he needs is a Congressman to endorse his complaint.

Takers, anyone?

Concise Bks 4 U

These books are (relatively) short and concise, yet are comprehensive. Very useful for crammers and bar reviewers.

Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Antonio B. Nachura (2006), 686 pages

Everyone's Labor Code, C.A. Azucena (2006), 379 pages/649 pages with appendices

Reviewer on Commercial Law, Jose Sundiang and Timoteo Aquino (2006), 433 pages

Tax Digest, Crescencio Co Untian Jr. (2005), 215 pages

Remedial Law Reviewer, Ed Vincent S. Albano and Ed Vincent A. Albano (2004), 1384 pages

Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code (Books I & II) and Special Penal Laws, Leonor Boado (2004), 927 pages

Pointers in Criminal Law, Justice Edilberto Sandoval (2004), 195 pages

Probationary Status and Minimum Wage

Q: An employer is of the position that since an employee was on probationary status, then the salary of the employee for the duration of six-month probationary period cannot be the same as the salary of a regular employee. Is this correct?

A: No. The probationary status of an employee and the wage or salary he is entitled to receive are two entirely distinct and disparate terms in labor law.

The first term is used in reference to security of tenure. A probationary employee is one who has a limited tenure, i.e. six (6) months; but such probationary employee is nevertheless entitled to security of tenure and can only be terminated for a just cause.

On the other hand, the “wage” or “salary” paid to any “employee” refers to the “remuneration or earnings” that are “capable of being expressed in terms of money, for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered. Under Art. 97 (c) of the Labor Code, the term “employee” is simply defined as “any individual employed by an employer.”

While there are exceptions to the coverage of the law on minimum wage, these are limited to farm tenancy or leasehold, domestic service and persons working in their respective homes in needle work or in any cottage industry duly registered in accordance with law.

The employer probably had in mind “special workers” covered by “apprenticeship agreements” or “learnership agreements,” and “handicapped workers” who are entitled to wages, albeit lower than the minimum wage.

From Sentricom v. NLRC (CA-G.R. SP NO. 85505, January 25, 2005).