17. G.R. No.

182836 October 13, 2009

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORP vs.

HON. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO

Facts:
Hortillano’s wife, Marife V. Hortillano, had a premature delivery on 5 January 2006
while she was in the 38th week of pregnancy. Continental Steel immediately granted
Hortillano’s claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement leave and
other death benefits, consisting of the death and accident insurance on the grounds
that the unborn child never died because it never acquired juridical personality. The
parties mutually chose Atty. Montaño, an Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator, to resolve
said issue.

Issue:
Whether or not life is synonymous with juridical personality?

Ruling:
Life is not synonymous with juridical personality. The Civil Code expressly provides
that civil personality may be extinguished by death, it does not explicitly state that
only those who have acquired juridical personality could die. In this case, Hortillano’s
fetus had had life inside the womb as evidenced by the fact that it clung to life for 38
weeks before the unfortunate miscarriage. Thus, death occurred on a dependent
hence Hortillano as an employee is entitled to death benefit claims as provided for in
their CBA.

-------------------------------------------
MARRIAGE

1. A.M. No. P-94-1054 March 11, 2003

EDWIN A. ACEBEDO vs. EDDIE P. ARQUERO

Facts:
Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero for immorality, alleging that his wife,
Dedje Irader Acebedo and Arquero unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as
husband and wife. Respondent justified his pursuing a relationship with
complainant's wife with the spouses having priorly entered into a settlement with
respect to their marriage which was embodied in a "Kasunduan", consenting to and
giving freedom to either of them to seek any partner and to live with him or her.

Issue:
Whether or not the settlement between the spouses are valid.

Ruling:
Arquero’s justification fails. Being an employee of the judiciary, Arquero ought to
have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of
the marriage between Acebedo and Irader. Article 1 of the Family Code provides that
marriage is ―an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.‖ It is an institution of
public order or policy, governed by rules established by law which cannot be made
inoperative by the stipulation of the parties.

------------------------
2. A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011

ESPINOSA ET AL., vs. ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA

Facts:
Complainants Espinosa and Glindo charged Omaña with violation of her oath as a
lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office.
Complainants alleged that on 17 November 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena
Marantal (Marantal) sought Omaña’s legal advice on whether they could legally live
separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on 23 July 1983. Omaña then
prepared a document entitled "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay"

Issue:
Whether or not the notary public should facilitate the separation of spouses.

Ruling:
The Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership
without judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should
not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership,
which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.