Is Tuesday "at least three days before" Friday?

Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 7, 2011



Is Tuesday at least three (3) days before Friday?

It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO.

1. When the law sets a period of time within which a party or counsel may file a pleading or motion, such period of time must be observed. Otherwise, the right to file the pleading or motion is lost.

2. When the law says a party has fifteen (15) days to file his answer to a complaint, he must do so within the period. Otherwise, the right is generally lost.

3. Under the law, a losing party has fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the decision within which to appeal or file an appropriate motion for reconsideration or new trial. Otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory and no longer appealable.

4. To illustrate: Where a copy of the decision is received by a losing party’s counsel, say, on June 30, 2011, he has fifteen (15) days therefrom, or July 1-15, within which to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration or new trial. If he fails to do that, the reglementary period will not be interrupted and the decision, by operation of law, shall become final and executory at the close of office hours on July 15, 2011. In such event, the right to appeal is LOST.

5. What is the three (3)-day motion rule? It states:

“Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.” (2nd par., Sec. 4, Rule 15)

Since motions are ordinarily heard on Friday afternoons, the question is: On what day – Monday or Tuesday – must a copy of the motion be received by the other party for the purpose of complying with the three-day motion rule?

6. The resolution of this issue is important because non-compliance with the rule renders the motion a mere scrap of paper which the court may not act upon, and which does not suspend the period to answer a complaint or to appeal (Sembrano v. Ramirez, 166 SCRA 30).

7. According to the Supreme Court, the answer to the question is Tuesday.

In Preysler v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010, the Court ruled:

“…the petitioner’s Omnibus Motion was set for hearing on 12 November 2004. Thus, to comply with the notice requirement, respondent should have received the notice of the hearing at least three days before 12 November 2004, which is 9 November 2004. Clearly respondent’s receipt on 9 November 2004 (Tuesday) of the notice of hearing of the Omnibus Motion which was set to be heard on 12 November 2004 (Friday), was within the required minimum three-days’ notice. As explained by Retired Justice Jose Y. Feria in his book, Civil Procedure Annotated, when the notice of hearing should be given:

The ordinary motion day is Friday. Hence the notice should be served on Tuesday at the latest, in order that the requirement of the three days may be complied with.

If notice be given by ordinary mail, it should actually be received by Tuesday, or if not claimed from the post office, the date of the first notice of the postmaster should be at least five (5) days before Tuesday.”

8. With all due respect, it is submitted that the correct answer to the question is Monday.

9. Is the law clear or not clear? CLEAR. There appears no reasonable doubt as to its meaning. As to the copy of the motion, the rule requires the movant to “ensure its RECEIPT by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of HEARING.” The rule contemplates two (2) events:

a. Date of RECEIPT, and
b. Date of HEARING.

In between these two events is the period of three (3) days.

10. If, as the SC ruled, the date of RECEIPT may be Tuesday, there will only be two (2) days – Wednesday and Thursday – before the date of HEARING, or Friday.

11. Hence, the date of RECEIPT must be Monday in order that there will be at least three (3) days – Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday – before the date of HEARING, or Friday.

12. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by law: “…the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded…” (Sec. 1, Rule 22, RULES OF COURT). Consequently, the date of RECEIPT from which the minimum three-day period begins to run – is EXCLUDED.

13. In Preysler, the OPPOSITE was done. The date of RECEIPT from which the minimum three-day period of time begins to run – was INCLUDED.

14. It would thus appear that Preysler illustrates the danger of CONSTRUING, instead of simply applying, a CLEAR provision of law.

15. The question that naturally arises among law students and legal practitioners is:

WHETHER THE PREYSLER RULING IS GOOD OR BAD FOR THE RULE OF LAW?
Candidly, not good.

ERC and PCSO crimes

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/8/2011



Last June 5, after 18 long months, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) finally responded to a petition from Mang Genaro “Naro” Lualhati — one of those who won for us the P30-billion refund in 2003 of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)’s 1993 overcharging — urging the body to respond to some Commission on Audit (CoA) findings that Meralco once again overcharged us by P7 billion in 2004 and 2007. Based on this, Lualhati asked for a different audit of the intervening years, the result of which formed the basis of his other P39-billion refund petition for all the other overcharging.

The ERC’s dilly-dallying was a blatant delaying tactic to prevent consumer advocates from bringing the issue to the courts pending the approval of the Performance Based Regulation (PBR) scheme for Meralco from 2011 to 2014, which consumers contend is illegal.

With the PBR recently approved and very dishonestly announced as a “lowering” of rates when it actually more than doubled the erstwhile legitimate ones, the ERC finally releases its decision on Lualhati’s petition — but with arguments full of deception, chicanery and sophistry.

The June 5 ERC decision claims that “the CoA erred… (by) applying disallowances under Meralco’s Performance Based Regulation application to the firm’s return on rate base (RoRB) petition to determine the fairness of rates; calculating Meralco revenues using historical asset costs and a 12-percent RoRB; and calculating Meralco disallowances and revenues without regard to ‘incrementals’ such as higher pension costs and kWh sales increases.”

It further describes the “use of historical asset costs (under) the 12 percent RoRB… as ‘contrary to existing law and jurisprudence’ that allow the use of appraised values and a weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which in this case was set by the ERC at 15.5 percent.” That WACC and 15.5-percent PBR are the ERC’s concoction and are in no way a law or having the force of law. Has the ERC now supplanted the Congress of the Philippines in making its own laws for the energy sector?

Butch Junia, our forensic analyst on the power sector, traces the root of the CoA audit to the “Rate Unbundling” case (which caused the first spike in power rates) in 2003, leading to the call for the ERC to enlist CoA for a regulatory audit. He says: “That was the audit that noted P7 billion over charges (which the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms or Nasecore placed at P15 billion; and which Mang Naro pegged at P31 billion); but that CoA audit, after 19 months, is overturned/ignored/debunked by ERC. All the points raised in the ERC order are contrary to the refund order of the SC (Supreme Court) in November 2002, reiterated in the denial of Meralco’s Motion for Reconsideration in April 2003.”

That refund order by the SC, Junia notes, is where: “1) the Net Average Investment method is applied; 2) the 12-percent RoRB is upheld, not WACC; 3) income tax is not chargeable to us (consumers); 4) Retroactivity of rates is expressly upheld; and 5) PBR is indirectly assailed, particularly rate unbundling.”

The PBR, Junia contends, “stands tenuously on a general prevision in the Epira (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) that allows the ERC to adopt an alternative rate setting methodology, but (with) guiding criteria; like a just rate for customers. This time (though) ERC has crossed the limit.”

The “Heads Up” movement by farmers groups will spread to other issues and advocacies since it is actually a protest against the entire corrupt system that rules over this land, such as in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) under all the administrations since Marcos, save for President Estrada’s (which the likes of Linggoy Alcuaz, who was part of the Arroyo PCSO Board, can attest was clean even as they tried to dig up dirt in the Estrada PCSO Board and found none).

I have had a long record of exposing PCSO anomalies since my October 2001 Tribune column. Readers may recall that I was one of the few who reported on the P80,000-media payola through radio spots to favored anchors and commentators. Several months back, I wrote a piece on some honest radio anchors who have since given up soliciting sponsorships from PCSO as the PR managers there demand as much as 70 percent of the billings. I also made an exposé on the reported Juico-Ayala deal to takeover the P4.5-billion Quezon Institute property along E. Rodriguez Ave., as well as the nepotism rampant in that present Board, not to mention the cornering of the agency’s PR fund by a “Doctor” who apparently now is being touted as a front for another Juico.

That is why I have persisted in broadcasting practically with no ads from any vested interest or group, sustained only through private efforts — to continue exposing the lies of mainstream media and educating the public with utmost credibility.

(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Heads Up for Coconut Farmers”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

The HPV vaccine scam

CONSUMERS DEMAND!
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/4-7/10/2011

I have to shift my column theme from “Critics’ Critic” to “Consumers’ Demand” as critical developments in the consumer welfare sector are crying for immediate attention.

There is a new Big Pharma scam going on.  It involves an aggressive marketing campaign on millions of innocent consumers who are being peddled an exorbitantly priced, unnecessary, and even potentially harmful vaccine.

The last time Big Pharma committed this atrocity was in April 2009 when it sensationally engineered the “Swine flu outbreak” in Mexico that allegedly killed hundreds but later declared severely exaggerated, given the final estimates that placed deaths at only a few dozens.

Such a scare led the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic and predict “millions of deaths.”

But one year and eight months later, in December 2010, several science and technology sites such as PhysOrg.com merely reported that swine flu “has killed 163 people out of almost 36,000 cases reported in 76 countries, according to the WHO.

Ad Brainwashing
Worldwide, seasonal flu death, according to WHO statistics, ranges from 250,000 to 500,000.

This makes the total swine flu deaths miniscule in comparison. Yet the WHO pandemic scare pushed governments into spending billions of dollars in totally useless drugs like Tamiflu – this, even as such drugs proved to be ineffective, with harmful side effects such as delirium as well as suicidal tendencies to boot.

Tamiflu, for one, was later revealed to have been manufactured by biopharmaceutical firm, Gilead Sciences, where former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had substantial shares.

It is the same company that produces the poison Aspartame that many consumers swallow willingly (because of ad brainwashing).

GMA bought Billions
As billions worth of swine flu vaccines were sold amid panic vaccination campaigns across the globe, Gloria Arroyo also bought billions of these.

Regular flu vaccines were simultaneously promoted, with many still being misled into accepting their efficacy, despite studies proving the contrary.

We’ll quote just one among thousands of such studies – this one from ProgressiveHealth.com:

“Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that reviews scientific evidence… published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews examined studies of health care workers vaccinations between 1997 and 2009.

“Researchers at the University of Calgary in Canada analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other studies assessing healthcare workers vaccination and effectiveness against influenza illness in elderly nursing home residents.

“The researchers found that vaccinating healthcare nursing home workers had no impact on confirmed flu cases among elderly residents.  Furthermore, vaccination did not affect the number of pneumonia-linked cases or deaths.  ‘We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities…’”

‘Pimping’ a Vaccine
Then, it went on to say that EU Health Minister Wolfgang Woodard investigated WHO and found that “governments were ‘threatened’ by… the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so…”

A few weeks ago, I noticed an increase in the tempo of the marketing campaign to get Filipinas young and old to shell out anywhere between P1,500 to P 3,000 for their own HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccination.
It was around that time that I saw this ad with Kris Aquino promoting the HPV vaccine.

Then, after seeing a number of billboards along EDSA offering HPV vaccinations at a cosmetic surgeon’s chain of clinics, I decided to surf the Net and saw a quote lifted by interactive magazine site Zimbio from celebritypulp.com melding Kris’ denial of her rumored pregnancy and her trip to her OB-GYN supposedly for “…the cervical cancer screening… (but also) to pimp some cervical cancer vaccine.”

Why the term “pimp” was used is already striking in itself.  Could this be the attitude these people take on such a serious issue?

No Efficacy Trials
The scare that HPV causes cancer has now been created that even some of the most intelligent women I know are rushing headlong to have it, feeling that they owe it to their body and well-being to do so – without realizing that they may just find their health (and pockets) compromised.

From the Natural Family Blog comes this report of an HPV vaccine researcher who dropped a bombshell: “Sunday, October 25, 2009; Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15…

“Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year.

“Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent.  Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine… stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the US is already so low that ‘even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.’"


Adverse Reaction
The report further said: “Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way.  To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  These adverse reactions include Guillain–Barré, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others.  The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

“Dr. Harper also participated in the research on GlaxoSmithKline’s version of the drug, Cervarix… Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction…

“The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination… (Dr. Harper) also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: ‘The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.’”

Huge Rip-Off
Dr. James Howenstine’s article, “Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Fraud,” enumerates the arguments against HPV vaccines:

“• HPV vaccine increases the risk of developing a precancerous cervical lesion by 44.6 percent in women previously infected with a HPV viral type found in the vaccine.

“• HPV virus does not cause cervical cancer.

“• HPV viral infections are self-limiting and are not a health threat to healthy females.

“• This valuable information about the etiology of HPV viral infections has been suppressed from public knowledge.

“• Allowing untruths about Gardasil to be disseminated in public hearings and planting fear have been used to promote sales of this worthless vaccine.”

It is thus the duty of media to bring the full story of the HPV vaccine to the public, and expose the snake oil salesmen peddling this huge rip-off.

The hefty amounts individuals shell out for such worthless, if not dangerous, vaccines would be enough for several months of fresh leafy greens and natural health remedies like turmeric, garlic, lemon grass, and virgin coconut oil (VCO) to naturally boost the body’s immune system.

Readers are therefore urged to do their own reading on the Internet about this; and not just rely on advertisements and celebrity endorsers for their health and well-being.

(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Supreme Court: Supreme Injustices” with Lauro Vizconde, Dante Jimenez, and Rasti Delizo of PMJ; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)