G.R. NO. 174238 July 07, 2009
Anita Cheng, Petitioner
Spouses William Sy and Tessie Sy, Respondents.
Anita Cheng filed two(2) estafa cases before the RTC-Manila against William and Tessie Sy for issuing to her Philippine Bank of Commerce checks no. 171762 and 71860 for P300,000.00 each in payment of their loan, both of which were dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn against a closed account.
Petitioner on January 20, 1999, filed against respondents two(2) cases for violation of BP 22 before the MeTC-Manila. On March 16, 2004, the RTC dismissed the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. Later, the MeTC dismissed the BP 22 cases on account of the failure of petitioner to identify the accused respondents in open court. On April 26, 2005, petitioner lodged against Sy’s before the RTC- Manila, a complaint for collection for sum of money with damages based on the same loaned amount of P600,000.00 covered by the two PBC checks previously subject of the estafa and BP 22 cases.
RTC-Manila, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ratiocinating that the civil action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 with damages was already impliedly instituted in the BP Blg 22 cases.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the court denied in its Order dated June 5, 2006
Whether petitioner can recover the loaned sum of money and damages?
Yes. Petitioner may recover under the principle of unjust enrichment. There is unjust enrichment when a person is unjustly benefited, and such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. Hence, if the loan be proven true, the inability of petitioner to recover the loaned amount would be tantamount to unjust enrichment of the respondents,
Executive Secretary vs Court of Appeals 429 SCRA 781
Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995) took effect on 15 July 1995. Prior to its effectivity, Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter Inc (ARCO-Phil) filed petition for declaratory relief. The alleged that:
Section 6, subsections (a) to (m) is unconstitutional because licensed and authorized recruitment agencies are placed on equal footing with illegal recruiters. It contended that while the Labor Code distinguished between recruiters who are holders of licenses and non-holders thereof in the imposition of penalties, Rep. Act No. 8042 does not make any distinction.
The penalties in Section 7(a) and (b) being based on an invalid classification are, therefore, repugnant to the equal protection clause, besides being excessive; hence, such penalties are violative of Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution.
In their answer to the petition, they contend that ARCO-Phil has no legal standing, it being a non-stock, non-profit organization; hence, not the real party-in-interest as petitioner in the action. It is service-oriented while the recruitment agencies it purports to represent are profit-oriented.
Issue: Whether or not ARCO-Phil has legal standing to assail Republic Act 8042?
Decision: The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. However, the respondent has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. We note that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its petition.
"Locus standi" (place of standing) - the right of the party to appear and be heard before court, or the right of a party to commence an action.