Herbert Cang

7/18/2019 Herbert Cang

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/herbert-cang 1/3

Herbert Cang, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Spouses Ronald V. Clavano

and Maria Clara Clavano, respondents. 1998

Facts !etitioner and Ana Marie Clavano "ere #arried and begot t$ree c$ildren.Ana Marie upon learning of $er $usband%s illicit liaison &le a petition for legal

separation "it$ ali#on' pendente lite "$ic$ "as approved. !etitioner t$en left

for t$e (nited States "$ere $e soug$t a divorce fro# Ana Marie. He "as issued a

divorce decree and granted sole custod' of t$e c$ildren to Ana Marie, reserving

rig$ts of visitation at all reasonable ti#es and places to petitioner. !rivate

respondents "$o "ere t$e brot$er and sister)in)la" of Ana Marie &led a petition

for adoption of t$e t$ree #inor Cang c$ildren. *$e trial court granted t$e petition

for adoption. Ana Marie "as t$e onl' parent "$o gives consent to t$e adoption of

t$eir c$ildren. *$e Court of Appeals a+r#ed t$e trial court%s decision.

ssue -$et$er petitioner $as abandoned $is c$ildren, t$ereb' #aing $is

consent to t$e adoption necessar'.

Ruling *$e la" is clear t$at eit$er parent #a' lose parental aut$orit' over t$e

c$ild onl' for a valid reason. /o suc$ reason "as establis$ed in t$e legal

separation case. 0eprivation of parental aut$orit' is one of t$e eects of a

decree of adoption. 2ut t$ere cannot be a valid decree of adoption in t$is case

precisel' because t$e &ndings of t$e lo"er courts on t$e issue of abandon#ent

of facts on record. *$e petition for adoption #ust be denied as it "as &led

"it$out t$e re3uired consent of t$eir fat$er "$o, b' la" and under t$e facts of

t$e case at bar, $as not abandoned t$e#.

Article 188 a#ended t$e statutor' provision on consent for adoption, t$e "ritten

consent of t$e natural parent to t$e adoption $as re#ained a re3uisite for its

validit'. Rule 99 of t$e Rules of t$e Court re3uires a "ritten consent to t$e

adoption signed b' t$e c$ild, 444 and b' eac$ of its no"n living parents "$o is

not insane or $opelessl' inte#perate or $as not abandoned t$e c$ild.

Article 567 of t$e Fa#il' Code re3uires t$e "ritten consent of t$e natural parent

for t$e decree of adoption to be valid unless t$e parent $as abandoned t$e c$ild

or t$at t$e parent is insane or $opelessl' inte#perate.

n reference to abandon#ent of a c$ild b' $is parent, t$e act of abandon#ent

i#ports an' conduct of t$e parent "$ic$ evinces a settled purpose to forego all

parental duties and relin3uis$ all parental clai#s to t$e c$ild. t #eans neglect

or refusal to perfor# t$e natural and legal obligations of care and support "$ic$

parents o"e t$eir c$ildren.



:VRA ;( <H, petitioner, vs. C<(R* <F A!!A:S and !<!: <F *H

!H:!!/S, respondents

!etitioner purc$ased pieces of =e"elr' fro# Solid >old nternational *raders, nc.

0ue to $er failure to pa' t$e purc$ase price, t$e co#pan' &led civil cases

against $er for speci&c perfor#ance before t$e R*C of !asig. <n Septe#ber 1?,

199@, petitioner and Solid >old t$roug$ it general #anager, oa3uin /ovales

entered into a co#pro#ise agree#ent to settle said civil cases. t "as approved

b' t$e trial court provided t$at petitioner s$all issue a total of ninet')nine post)

dated c$ecs in t$e a#ount of !H! 6@,@@@.@@ eac$, dated ever' 16t$ and B@t$

of t$e #ont$ starting <ctober 1, 199@ and t$e balance of over !H! 1#illion to be

paid in lu#p su# on /ove#ber 17, 199 Dt$e due date of t$e 99t$ post dated

c$ecE. !etitioner t$en issued ten c$ecs at !$p 6@,@@@.@@ eac$ for a total of !$p6@@,@@@.@@ dra"n against $er account at t$e 3uitable 2aning Corporation

D2CE. /ovales t$en deposited eac$ of t$e ten c$ecs on t$eir respective due

dates to t$e co#pan' ban account. Ho"ever, said c$ecs "ere dis$onored b'

t$e 2C for t$e reason Account ClosedG. 0is$onor slips "ere issued for eac$

c$ec t$at "as returned to /ovales. <n <ctober 6, 1995, /ovales &led 1@

separate infor#ations before t$e R*C of ueIon Cit' c$arging t$e petitioner "it$

violation of 2atas !a#bansa 2lg. 55. (pon arraign#ent, petitioner pleaded not

guilt'./onet$eless, R*C convicted $er of ten counts of violation of 2! 55. CA

a+r#ed t$e decision

ssue -$et$er appellate court "as #istaen in not granting retroactive eect to

RA ?791 in vie" of Art 55 of t$e R!C.

Art. 55 of t$e R!C &nds no application to t$e case at barJ =urisdiction is

deter#ined b' t$e la" in force at t$e ti#e of t$e &ling of t$e co#plaint, and

once ac3uired, =urisdiction is not aected b' subse3uent legislative enact#ents

placing =urisdiction in anot$er tribunalJ in t$is case, t$e R*C "as vested "it$

=urisdiction to tr' petitioners cases "$en t$e sa#e "ere &led in <ctober 1995J at

t$at ti#e, R.A. /o. ?791 "as not 'et eective in so far as t$e retroactive eect of

R.A. /o. ?791 is concerned, t$at sa#e is li#ited onl' to pending civil cases t$at

$ave not reac$ed pre)trial stage as provided for in Section ? t$ereof and as

clari&ed b' t$is Court in !eople vs. ;olanda Velasco"$ere it "as $eld KaL perusal

of R.A. /o. ?791 "ill s$o" t$at its retroactive provisions appl' onl' to civil cases

t$at $ave not 'et reac$ed t$e pre)trial stage. /eit$er fro# an e4press proviso

nor b' i#plication can it be understood as $aving retroactive application to

cri#inal cases pending or decided b' t$e R*C prior to its eectivit'. t$e case of

Cang vs. Court of Appeals t$is Court $eld t$at =urisdiction being a #atter of

substantive la", t$e establis$ed rule is t$at t$e statute in force at t$e ti#e of t$e

co##ence#ent of t$e action deter#ines t$e =urisdiction of t$e court. R.A. /o.

?791 "as not 'et in force at t$e ti#e of t$e co##ence#ent of t$e cases in t$e

trial court. t too eect onl' during t$e pendenc' of t$e appeal before t$e Courtof Appeals. *$ere is t$erefore no #erit in t$e clai# of petitioner t$at R.A. /o.



?791 s$ould be retroactivel' applied to t$is case and t$e sa#e be re#anded to

t$e M*C. *$e Court $as $eld t$at a la" vesting additional =urisdiction in t$e court

cannot be given retroactive eect . Sol>en contends t$at notice of dis$onor is

dispensable in t$is case considering t$at t$e cause of t$e dis$onor of t$e c$ecs

"as Account Closed and t$erefore, petitioner alread' ne" t$at t$e c$ecs "ill

bounce an'"a'. *$is argu#ent $as no #erit. *$e Court $as decided nu#erous

cases "$ere c$ecs "ere dis$onored for t$e reason, Account Closed and "e

$ave e4plicitl' $eld in said cases t$at it is essential for t$e #aer or dra"er to be

noti&ed of t$e dis$onor of $er c$ec, so s$e could pa' t$e value t$ereof or #ae

arrange#ents for its pa'#ent "it$in t$e period prescribed b' la"and o#ission or

neglect on t$e part of t$e prosecution to prove t$at t$e accused received suc$

notice of dis$onor is fatal to its cause

Documents

Herbert Cang