your legal problems here

[glenn manikis]

so matagal na process ang iniisip ko kasi is it worth na habulin ko pa ba? or ipag pa sa dyos ko nalang?

Para mas padali, file estafa and falsification of public document both buyer and seller....

Kung sabihin ni seller buyer in good faith sya... Patunayan nya yan sa husgado... Don't tell me hindi man kang sya nag tanong sa kapit bahay o barangay.. Sa identity ng true owner...

Criminal in nature ang kaso at malaki pyansa nyan, malaki possibility makapal settle sayo yan.. Lalo na Pag may warrant na sila..

[holdencaulfield]

ako naman po ay may katanungan.

ano po ang pros and cons kung gagamitin o hindi gagamitin ng isang ginang ang apelyido ng kanyang napangasawa?

meron kasi akong kilalang mga married women pero di nabago mga surnames nila either sa tawag o sa papel. pati pirma walang nabago.

salamat po ng marami sa mga pro bono niyong mga sagot! alien at raise the roof!

[Juan Martinez]

Si JM, hindi po ba dapat yung insurance ng kotse nakaanga ang mag shoulder ng damage, as that's what the insurance is for?

yes, you have a good point, macsd, but, to be responsive to CNS' query, i traversed the same mainly on the validity or invalidity of the waiver signed by the driver. in so doing, i discussed in passing the concomitant liability-- civil and criminal-- and who would be liable thereto. i didn't have the insurance aspect in mind. anyhow, paying the insurance proceeds to the party entitled to it does not negate the criminal liability of the driver or the civil (vicarious) liability of his employer.

[Flip]

add ko lang na posible wala bayarang donor's tax depende sa value ng donation since anak naman yung donee. last time i checked first 100k is exempt if kamag anak donee. beauty of donor's tax is its variable from 0-30% depende sa situation vs capital gains na fixed at 6%. so pacompute muna kung saan mas makakamura.

Not so fast. A voluntary transfer such as a sale or donation might appear to be simple and straightforward compare to a cadastral proceeding for amendment of title. But we have to look at the tax consequence as well. A donation will invite greater amount of tax compared to a sale. Donor's tax is around 30% whereas capital gains tax on sale is only 6%. So you might be better off selling the property instead.

But it might present a problem if the daughter is a minor (less than 18 years) or even if she's of majority age, say 20 years old but not gainfully employed (no TIN).

If less than 18 and therefore the daughter is not capable of entering into a contract such as of donation, the parents may have to go to court for the appointment of a property guardian (such as one of the parents) or posting of guardianship bond. Why? Because the property guardian will be holding the property in trust for the minor child. And the bond will act as security for the faithful performance by the property guardian of his obligations as such guardian.

If of legal age but not gainfully employed, the BIR will consider the sale as a donation and assess donor's tax, which is higher.

You're actually talking about estate planning this early because estate tax is, like donor's tax, also high relative to sales tax. Besides, heirs left with property will have to go through estate proceedings or estate settlement which could be complicated and costly. You don't want to pass leaving your child with property that will turn out to be a burden to her.

So at this time, I can't give the proper legal advice. Perhaps when the right time comes, say the daughter is of age and gainfully employed, you might then consider selling the property to her. There would then be no need for court appointment of guardian and posting of guardianship bond, no cadastral proceeding, no donor's tax, no estate tax, etc.

To avoid multiple payment of taxes where it is only the government that benefits, it is really advisable to buy property intended to be owned by children to buy it in trust for the children. The BIR recognizes trust arrangements. When the trust ends such as when the children come of age, the title can be amended (to reflect only the children as owner) without any tax consequence.

[b_9904]

I don't know if my story will fit here. Still worth a try.

Last tuesday may training ako outside the office. Since malayo yun decided to left my car sa office and ride the corporate vehicle.

Lunchtime my officemate called me informing me naatrasan yung car ko, will not elaborate it more basta pure KATANGAHAN nung driver going out of his slot.

Ang hassle lang is visitor lang sa building, company driver lang using company vehicle.

Got the contact details of the driver, ang habang litanya at talambuhay ng kwento ng buhay niya in short nakikiusap wag na magbayad.

Prior to employment he signed something like for every accidents/damages incurred while driving will be charged to him not to the company

Questions:

Can employers do that? Yes the driver signed pero is that fair and legal on the employees (driver) part?

Plan ko kausapin na lang directly is yung company or anyone immediately handling the driver. Yung participation lang naman hinahabol ko sa kanila.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Registered owner rule. Sino registered owner, yung tpl nya ang mananagot. Pag wala tpl, edi out of pocket ng owner.

Sila na ng driver bahala mag usap.

[b_9904]

ako naman po ay may katanungan.

ano po ang pros and cons kung gagamitin o hindi gagamitin ng isang ginang ang apelyido ng kanyang napangasawa?

meron kasi akong kilalang mga married women pero di nabago mga surnames nila either sa tawag o sa papel. pati pirma walang nabago.

salamat po ng marami sa mga pro bono niyong mga sagot! alien at raise the roof!

Wala naman effect yan e. Purely voluntary sa kanila na gamitin surname ng husband nila.

Wala pro yan, daming cons. Change mo lahat ng id mo, pati sa mga govt docs change name ka dun, name mo sa banko, etc. Etc.

[Flip]

I think my question is more on ano ba ang prescribed protocol dapat as per ordinance or law... na madalas hindi sinusunod ng enforcer.. hut since di alam ng motorista.. di din nya magamit laban sa enforcer... like.. sa smoje belching.. I heard ( didnt get to ask the actual basis na document) .. but mga requirements daw ay:
- valid mission order ( kung wala, di sila pwede mag operate)
- valid, recent ( as in max 15 days old) calibration ng equipment nila
- it shouldbe the driver na aapak sa accelerator.. hindi pwede daw yung enforcer team... ( pwede daw kasuhan ang enforcer team pag sila ang umapak sa accelerator)

I dont know if all these are true.. kaya nga im hoping we could get to the source ng issuance ng mga ganitong batas...

Ang sa akin lang sa smoke belching is always start with probable cause. pagka confident ka na walang any sign of belching yung vehicle mo under normal operating conditions then enforcers cannot proceed testing. same principles lang din sa check points dapat i apply, pag wala makita na unusual sa visual inspection the police has to let you pass.

I believe yung probable cause dito is, there is smoke belching and your vehicle is probably causing it. Hindi yung, your vehicle is a diesel and it is probably smoke belching

IMO lang since wala pang test case. Bakit kasi wala pang nag fifile ng kaso questioning validity ng mga alanganing rules and procedures ngayon. dati kasi may mga masipag mag file ng cases like nung rfid ng lto and this MMDA vs Garin : 130230 : April 15, 2005 : J. Chico-Nazario : Second Division : Decision . baka sir gusto niyo kayo mag start haha

[Juan Martinez]

ano po ang pros and cons kung gagamitin o hindi gagamitin ng isang ginang ang apelyido ng kanyang napangasawa?

under the civil code,
a married woman has the prerogative whether to use the surname of the husband or not.
however, there are instances, take for example passport application with DFA, the moment she opted to adopt her husband’s surname, she may not be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name, except: a) death of her husband; b) divorce; c) annulment; d) nullity of marriage.

[Juan Martinez]

IMO lang since wala pang test case. Bakit kasi wala pang nag fifile ng kaso questioning validity ng mga alanganing rules and procedures ngayon. dati kasi may mga masipag mag file ng cases like nung rfid ng lto and this MMDA vs Garin : 130230 : April 15, 2005 : J. Chico-Nazario : Second Division : Decision . baka sir gusto niyo kayo mag start haha

please you read again MMDA vs. Garin. the lis mota is not about rfid. the issue in Garin is whether MMDA has the power to confiscate, suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulation.
the SC held that, MMDA, unlike LGUs, does not have that authority.

[Flip]

^ alam ko sir. i was citing 2 cases. just dont know where to find link to the rfid case. point is madami court challenges against questionable government acts affecting ordinary citizens then. individual and group initiated cases or citizen taxpayer suits which benefited all of us. i dont know kung huli lang ako sa balita pero parang wala masyado ngayon or not as successful.

[b_9904]

I think my question is more on ano ba ang prescribed protocol dapat as per ordinance or law... na madalas hindi sinusunod ng enforcer.. hut since di alam ng motorista.. di din nya magamit laban sa enforcer... like.. sa smoje belching.. I heard ( didnt get to ask the actual basis na document) .. but mga requirements daw ay:
- valid mission order ( kung wala, di sila pwede mag operate)
- valid, recent ( as in max 15 days old) calibration ng equipment nila
- it shouldbe the driver na aapak sa accelerator.. hindi pwede daw yung enforcer team... ( pwede daw kasuhan ang enforcer team pag sila ang umapak sa accelerator)

I dont know if all these are true.. kaya nga im hoping we could get to the source ng issuance ng mga ganitong batas...

Mission order: check
Certifications: check
Driver aapak: dunno. Pero dapat driver ang aapak kasi para walang problema.

[Juan Martinez]

add ko lang na posible wala bayarang donor's tax depende sa value ng donation since anak naman yung donee. last time i checked first 100k is exempt if kamag anak donee. beauty of donor's tax is its variable from 0-30% depende sa situation vs capital gains na fixed at 6%. so pacompute muna kung saan mas makakamura.

Flip, i suggest you backread before making any offhand comment. i consider the discussion here serious as we talk about what the law is on certain state of facts. we talk here of LEGAL PROBLEMS. the subject of inquiry wherein machine pistol gave a well-considered, judicious legal opinion was about a piece of property developed by macsd. do you think it is only worth PhP 100, 000.00? i understand that there is no monopoly in the knowledge of the law as it is even presumed that everyone knows about it, but if you want to have your tooth extracted you would go to a dentist, right? you posted here the term "probable cause" in relation to smoke belching and cited an off-tangent jurisprudence to drive home your point, do you know what you're talking about? if not, i ask you not to make a flippant comment, and go elsewhere. from his post, i'm sure MP is not a lawyer you find at the city hall notarizing bogus documents nor chasing ambulances. we have in out midst a highly intelligent lawyer who knows what he's talking about (which is good to our community here). now, flip, you have the temerity to comment on his post. let me tell you, i learned from them. i appreciate his participation because as i said at the outset, taxation, commercial law, and certain subjects of civil law are not my thing. on the other hand, your posts only muddle the issue rather than inform everyone. i did not prevent you from posting here but please refrain from making any puerile comment. if you do it again, i pray the mods to close this thread. thank you.

[Flip]

^ wala ako kinokontra sa mga sinasabi nino man dito kaya nga sabi ko "add" and "posible" di ba? kulang facts ng problem so marami pwede na sagot. now, one of the problem is transferring property to a relative with least tax liability, wala sinabi na amount. ang sinasabi ko lang naman ay POSIBLE din maka mura ng tax donation. And what part of my comment do you think is a joke?

i know na lagi ka may nakakasagutan dito sir and most of the time it goes out of hand. i dont want to cause trouble and dirty this otherwise good thread you started, so this is the last you will hear from me here.

[Juan Martinez]

mabuti pa. maraming salamat.

[[redlantern]

Why are there too may lawyers in the philippines but not orderly?

Hey counsel i have a problem. I paid a girl really pretty tall big jugs butt but when i saw her areola, i got depress. Told her to leave i change my mind but the money stays with her. But the girls kept insiting that we need to play. I really refuse and told her shes free to go. Its charity for that night.

Can i sue here for possession of freaky areola?

[b_9904]

Why are there too may lawyers in the philippines but not orderly?

Hey counsel i have a problem. I paid a girl really pretty tall big jugs butt but when i saw her areola, i got depress. Told her to leave i change my mind but the money stays with her. But the girls kept insiting that we need to play. I really refuse and told her shes free to go. Its charity for that night.

Can i sue here for possession of freaky areola?

Natawa ako kaso...

Errr... do you know the.exact number of lawyers in the philippines?

[Ry_Tower]

Natawa ako kaso...

Errr... do you know the.exact number of lawyers in the philippines?

Bro banned na yan. Huwag mo patulan at may litik yan.

[b_9904]

Bro banned na yan. Huwag mo patulan at may litik yan.

Ah, ganun ba. Hihi

Salamat sa heads up.

[cast_no_shadow]

Atty eto hypothetical pero criminal related.

Kausap ko officemate ko, yung brother niya binigyan siya ng baril. Yung baril walang papeles.

What if may nanloob sa kanila, nabaril at napatay niya. May liability ba siya?

Premise is inamin niya na sa kanya ang baril.

Or much better ba na ideny niya na sa kanya nga?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juan Martinez]

Atty eto hypothetical pero criminal related.

Kausap ko officemate ko, yung brother niya binigyan siya ng baril. Yung baril walang papeles.

What if may nanloob sa kanila, nabaril at napatay niya. May liability ba siya?

Premise is inamin niya na sa kanya ang baril.

Or much better ba na ideny niya na sa kanya nga?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

under ra 10591, use of an unlicensed fa in the commission of a crime is an aggravating circumstance (meaning, no separate crime of illegal possession of fa, but the use of the same increases the penalty of the crime committed) IF the crime committed using such unlicensed fa has a penalty greater than the penalty of illegal possession of fa. in your question, napatay niya yung nanloob, that's homicide. homicide is punished with imprisonment from 12 yrs and 1 day to 20 years; whereas, illegal possession of fa is generally punished with imprisonment from 6 yrs to 12 yrs. so, in this scenario, magiging aggravating circumstance lang yung FA. Yung depensa dun sa kaso ng kaibigan mo ay legitimate SELF-DEFENSE. ang thesis ko ay ganito-- ang self defense is a justifying circumstance. in the eyes of the law, the person who is defending himself is not committing a crime. so if he is not committing a crime, then wala then tayong crime na ma-aggravate using the unlicensed fa. the question is, in defending oneself, do we need to check first whether the weapon we're using in defending ourselves licensed or not? of course not. people who are defending themselves are in a life and death situation where they do not have that luxury anymore.
but because unlicensed fa is illicit it has to be confiscated in favor of the government.
I hope I do make sense bro CNS