Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Carolino Vs Senga

    Uploaded by

    Marion Lawrence Lara
    This document summarizes two legal cases: 1) Carolino vs Senga - The retirement benefits of Jeremias Carolino are governed by RA 340 from 1976 and are not affected by an amendment in 1979 as amendments are not retroactive. 2) Famanila vs CA - Roberto Famanila received a settlement in 1991 for an injury but later filed a complaint in 1997. The court found his consent to the settlement was not vitiated despite claims of disability and financial constraints. Witnesses verified he signed voluntarily.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Carolino Vs Senga

    Uploaded by

    Marion Lawrence Lara
    107 views1 page
    This document summarizes two legal cases: 1) Carolino vs Senga - The retirement benefits of Jeremias Carolino are governed by RA 340 from 1976 and are not affected by an amendment in 1979 as amendments are not retroactive. 2) Famanila vs CA - Roberto Famanila received a settlement in 1991 for an injury but later filed a complaint in 1997. The court found his consent to the settlement was not vitiated despite claims of disability and financial constraints. Witnesses verified he signed voluntarily.

    Original Description:

    full

    Original Title

    Carolino vs Senga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two legal cases: 1) Carolino vs Senga - The retirement benefits of Jeremias Carolino are governed by RA 340 from 1976 and are not affected by an amendment in 1979 as amendments are not retroactive. 2) Famanila vs CA - Roberto Famanila received a settlement in 1991 for an injury but later filed a complaint in 1997. The court found his consent to the settlement was not vitiated despite claims of disability and financial constraints. Witnesses verified he signed voluntarily.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views1 page

    Carolino Vs Senga

    Uploaded by

    Marion Lawrence Lara
    This document summarizes two legal cases: 1) Carolino vs Senga - The retirement benefits of Jeremias Carolino are governed by RA 340 from 1976 and are not affected by an amendment in 1979 as amendments are not retroactive. 2) Famanila vs CA - Roberto Famanila received a settlement in 1991 for an injury but later filed a complaint in 1997. The court found his consent to the settlement was not vitiated despite claims of disability and financial constraints. Witnesses verified he signed voluntarily.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CAROLINO VS SENGA – The retirement of Jeremias Carolino is under RA 340 since he retired on the year

    1976; the amendment of such statute under PD no. 1638 is not applicable to his retirement benefits
    since the said amendment was signed by then President Marcos in 1979. Art. 4 of Civil Code provides
    that all laws shall have no retroactive effect; unless the contrary is provided. This principle also applies
    to amendments of statutes.

    FAMANILA VS CA – On Feb 28, 1991, Roberto Famanila received the amicable settlement of USD
    13,200.00 from Hansa Riga and other respondents (Barber Ship Management, NFD International
    Manning Agents, Inc.) and signed Waiver and Quitclaim from all the demands, claims, and other liens
    arising from the sickness he endured whilst on board Hansa Riga. They filed a complaint with the NLRC
    on June 11, 1997 praying for an award of disability benefits, share in the insurance proceeds, moral
    damages and attorney’s fees.

    Petitioner claims that he did not sign the Receipt and Release voluntarily of freely because he was
    permanently disabled and in financial constraints. These factors allegedly vitiated his consent which
    makes the Receipt and Release void and unforceable.

    The petition lack merit.

    In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that show that petitioner’s consent was vitiated when
    he signed the agreement. Granting that petitioner has not fully recovered his health at the time he
    signed the subject document, the same cannot still lead to the conclusion that he did not voluntarily
    accept the agreement, for his wife and another relative witnessed his signing.

    You might also like