Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim
A green home is cleaner home. Book Now!

Fxclearing.com SCAM! – Official Month in Review: January 1956 Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines – FXCL STOLE MONEY!

 

                                                                  Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

 

 

 

#1 Mick Jerold Dela Cruz

Present Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#2 Gremelyn Nemuco

Present Address; One Rockwell, Makati City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#3 Vinna Vargas

Address: Imus, Cavite 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#4 Ivan Dela Cruz

Present Address: Imus, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#5 Elton Danao

Permanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila 
Present Address: Naic, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#6 Virgelito Dada

Present Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#7 John Christopher Salazar

Permanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#8 Xanty Octavo 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#9 Daniel Boco

Address: Imus, Cavite

 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

#10 James Gonzalo Tulabot

Permanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite 
Present Address: Pasay City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#12 Juan Sonny Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

       

 

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES



In their joint Answer7 and Answer to Amended Complaint,8 filed on 12 September 1985 and 6 November 1985, respectively, petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts in the Citibank branch in Geneva, Switzerland (Citibank-Geneva). Petitioners further alleged that the respondent later obtained several loans from petitioner Citibank, for which she executed Promissory Notes , and secured by a Declaration of Pledge of her dollar accounts in Citibank-Geneva, and Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. When respondent failed to pay her loans despite repeated demands by petitioner Citibank, the latter exercised its right to off-set or compensate respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposits and money market placements, pursuant to the Declaration of Pledge and the Deeds of Assignment executed by respondent in its favor. Petitioner Citibank supposedly informed respondent Sabeniano of the foregoing compensation through letters, dated 28 September 1979 and 31 October 1979. Petitioners were therefore surprised when six years later, in 1985, respondent and her counsel made repeated requests for the withdrawal of respondent’s deposits and money market placements with petitioner Citibank, including her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. Thus, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint and for the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. I urge my brethren in the Court to give due and serious consideration to this new constitutional provision as the case at bar once more calls us to define the parameters of our power to review violations of the rules of the House.We will not be true to our trust as the last bulwark against government abuses if we refuse to exercise this new power or if we wield it with timidity. To be sure, it is this exceeding timidity to unsheathe the judicial sword that has increasingly emboldened other branches of government to denigrate, if not defy, orders of our courts. In Tolentino, I endorsed the view of former Senator Salonga that this novel provision stretching the latitude of judicial power is distinctly Filipino and its interpretation should not be depreciated by undue reliance on inapplicable foreign jurisprudence. In resolving the case at bar, the lessons of our own history should provide us the light and not the experience of foreigners.

The appropriations for the PCCR were authorized by the President, not by Congress. An action is considered “moot” when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead. Under E.O. No. 43, the PCCR was instructed to complete its task on or before June 30, 1999. However, on February 19, 1999, the President issued Executive Order No. 70 (E.O. No. 70), which extended the time frame for the completion of the commission’s work x x x. The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the President on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the President on the same day. Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist, having lost its raison d’être. Subsequent events have overtaken the petition and the Court has nothing left to resolve. Respondents insist that the real issue in this case is the legality of petitioner’s reassignment from the EID to the Law Department. Consequently, the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments is not the lis mota of this case. They aver that this inclusion was borne out of the CA’s reliance on the contention of respondent Tayud Golf in its Petition for Annulment of the Final Ordersthat petitioners were adjudged to be the co-owners of, among others, one hundred eight parcels of land which are actually owned by respondent Tayud Golf.

RESPONDENT-IN-INTERVENTION.SALACNIB F. BATERINA AND DEPUTY

While purportedly only Articles VI, VII, and XVIII are involved, the fact is, as the petition and text of the proposed changes themselves state, every provision of the Constitution will have to be examined to see if they conform to the nature of a unicameral-parliamentary form of government and changed accordingly if they do not so conform to it. For example, Article VIII on Judicial Department cannot stand as is, in a parliamentary system, for under such a system, the Parliament is supreme, and thus the Court’s power to declare its act a grave abuse of discretion and thus void would be an anomaly. The question, therefore, arises whether the proposed changes in the Constitution set forth in the petition for initiative herein involved are mere amendments or rather are revisions. Again, even granting arguendo RA 6735 is declared sufficient to implement the system of initiative and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, as it prescribed rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is valid, still, the petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution must be dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance. The petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution filed by petitioners Lambino, et al., being in truth and in fact a proposal for the revision thereof, is barred from the system of initiative upon any legally permissible construction of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Further, these provisions having been incorporated in the Constitution, where the validity of a constitutional amendment or revision depends upon whether such provisions have been complied with, such question presents for consideration and determination a judicial question, and the courts are the only tribunals vested with power under the Constitution to determine such question. According to petitioners, the proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII would effect a more efficient, more economical and more responsive government. The parliamentary system would allegedly ensure harmony between the legislative and executive branches of government, promote greater consensus, and provide faster and more decisive governmental action.
fxcl scam
Respondent’s testimony, that based on her experience transacting with banks, the MCs were not supposed to include notations on the purpose for which the checks were issued, also deserves scant consideration. While respondent may have extensive experience dealing with banks, it still does not qualify her as a competent witness on banking procedures and practices. Her testimony on this matter is even belied by the fact that the other MCs issued by petitioner Citibank and by petitioner FNCB Finance, the existence and validity of which were not disputed by respondent, also bear similar notations that state the reason for which they were issued. When respondent failed to pay the second set of PNs upon their maturity, an exchange of letters ensued between respondent and/or her representatives, on one hand, and the representatives stole my deposit of petitioners, on the other. The Petition for Review would constitute the initiatory pleading before this Court, upon the timely filing of which, the case before this Court commences; much in the same way a case is initiated by the filing of a Complaint before the trial court. The Petition for Review establishes the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought from this Court, and without such a Petition, there is technically no case before this Court. The Motion filed by respondent seeking extension of time within which to file her Petition for Review does not serve the same purpose as the Petition for Review itself. Such a Motion merely presents the important dates and the justification for the additional time requested for, but it does not go into the details of the appealed case.

AS PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, GILBERT

He also said that the President had promised to send a dredge being imported from the United States to the province to dredge the Bicol River in order to prevent the recurrence of floods which had proved destructive in the past. After the induction, the President congratulated the city officials and their wives. He went around the long reception hall table and greeted the guests. The city officials were accompanied by their wives during the induction ceremony. People observed that Mayor Lacson wore a blue suit with two-buttoned coat and red tie and black-and-white shoes. The President wore a white coat, light brown trousers, and a maroon colored tie. President Magsaysay said that although there were two Liberal Party councilors in the municipal board, he was confident that the minority members would cooperate with the majority in working for the welfare of the people. In his first public appearance since the back procedure, Woods tells CBS in an interview during the final round of the Genesis Invitational that there is no timetable for his return.

  • A non-partisan delegation composed of political leaders from Northern Luzon invited the President to a reception and ball to be held at the Fiesta Pavilion of the Manila Hotel on January 27 as a token of their appreciation for the appointment of Eulogio Balao as secretary of national defense.
  • Addressing the people who witnessed the Cabinet meeting, President Magsaysay said that the Administration had initiated the holding of Cabinet meetings in the field in order that the high government officials could see for themselves the actual needs of the barrios and could act with more dispatch and sympathetic understanding on all requests for the improvement of life in the rural areas.
  • The President today issued Proclamation No. 242, declaring the period from February 22 to 28, inclusive, of every year as traffic safety week and March 1 of every year as safe driving day.
  • A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.

The government said that in a referendum held from January 10 to January 15, the vast majority ratified the draft of the Constitution. Note that all members of the Supreme Court were residents of Manila, but none of them had been notified of any referendum in their respective places of residence, much less did they participate in the alleged referendum. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachmentto effectively carry out the purpose of this section. It is expected that this requirement will allay the suspicion that no study was made of the decision of the lower court and that its decision was merely affirmed without a prior examination of the facts and the law on which it is based. The proximity at least of the annexed statement should suggest that such examination has been undertaken.
Five members of the Court opined that there was a need for the re-examination of said ruling. Thus, the pronouncement of the Court in Santiago remains the law of the case and binding on petitioners. In the Resolution dated June 10, 1997, the motions for reconsideration of the Santiago decision were denied with finality as only six Justices, or less than the majority, voted to grant the same. The Resolution expressly stated that the motion for reconsideration failed “to persuade the requisite majority of the Court to modify or reverse the Decision of 19 March 1977.” In fine, the pronouncement in Santiago as embodied in the Decision of March 19, 1997 remains the definitive ruling on the matter. At this point, I can say without fear that there is nothing wrong with our present government structure. It is then safe to conclude that what we should change are some of the people running the government, NOT the SYSTEM.

They told the President that no opposition was registered against the ratification by any provincial or municipal chapter of the DP. January 9.—AT a breakfast conference this morning, the President discussed with Maestro Federico Elizalde the proposed establishment of the national theatre at the corner of Taft Avenue and Isaac Peral. Designed for all artistic exhibitions, the national theater is envisioned to have a seating capacity of from 15,000 to 20,000. The President said that he will create a committee to study ways and means of establishing the theater. The presidential inter-departmental task force is a mobile body that will be sent by the Chief Executive to various regions of the country to accelerate the implementation of the Administration’s policies in its projects. The President said that through this committee he could obtain first hand information on the performance and actual conditions obtaining in the various administration projects. He added that through the recommendations of this committee the government could render more service to the people. PRESIDENT Magsaysay issued an executive order today elevating the press secretary to the President to Cabinet rank, in response to a petition to that effect by the National Press Club of the Philippines. The President pledged anew that his administration was primarily concerned with the well-being of the small man. He said he has shown the way himself by opening Malacañang to the people.

The organization of this task force is a step taken by the President in his desire to insure the success of the different government projects by keeping a close tab on the progress that they are achieving. Upon receiving the report, the President approved the release of P2,0000 for the payment of the NARIC rice already distributed to the barrio people and for the repair of the partially destroyed school house. The Crisol committee found that the practical solution to ameliorate the lives of the people was to dredge the river which would make 300,000 hectares available for farming and would result in higher family incomes. Crisol further reported that 20 sacks of NARIC rice had been distributed to the barrio people and that medicines and medical treatment had been given by the rural health unit. He added that a barrio council had been organized with the combined efforts of the barrio school teacher, the agricultural extension officer, the local rural health officer, and the barrio lieutenant.

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE CHAPTERS, INTERVENORS.

It will still be a representative government where officials continue to be accountable to the people and the people maintain control over the government through the election of members of the Parliament. On the factor of changes in law and in facts, certain realities on ground cannot be blinked away. The urgent need to adjust certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution to enable the country to compete in the new millennium is given. The only point of contention is the mode to effect the change whether through constituent assembly, constitutional convention or people’s initiative. Petitioners claim that they have gathered over six million registered voters who want to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative and that their signatures have been verified by registrars of the COMELEC. 6735 is insufficient to implement the direct right of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from whom all government authority emanates. New developments in our internal and external social, economic, and political settings demand the reexamination of the Santiago case.

The law allows banks to offer the lowest possible interest rate to depositors while charging the highest possible interest rate on their own borrowers. The interest spread or differential belongs to the bank and not to the depositors who are not cestui que trust of banks. If depositors are cestui que trust of banks, then the interest spread or income belongs to the depositors, a situation that Congress certainly did not intend in enacting Section 2 of RA 8791. The trial court further justified the dismissal of the complaint by holding that the case was a last ditch effort of L.C.

BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CHAPTER, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HOUSE OF

The withdrawal slip was then given to another officer who compared the signatures on the withdrawal slip with the specimen on the signature cards. The trial court concluded that Solidbank acted with care and observed the rules on savings account when it allowed the withdrawal of P300,000 from the savings account of L.C. Without the Declaration of Pledge, petitioner Citibank had no authority to demand the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and to apply them to her outstanding loans. It cannot effect legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code since, petitioner Citibank itself admitted that Citibank-Geneva is a distinct and separate entity. As for the dollar accounts, respondent was the creditor and Citibank-Geneva is the debtor; and as for the outstanding loans, petitioner Citibank was the creditor and respondent was the debtor.
SPEAKER RAUL M. GONZALES, PETITIONERS, WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF
The President and the Cabinet also made preliminary studies on how to improve the living conditions of the people in the Babuyan Islands group. The President showed concern over how to improve the health and living conditions of the people in that group. The Cabinet was informed that the government would collect in tariff duties some P9,500,000 from the importation of Virginia leaf tobacco. PRESIDENT Magsaysay and the Cabinet at their meeting today made effective a Cabinet decision allowing the unloading and withdrawal from customs custody of Virginia leaf tobacco shipments, not to exceed a total of 8,100,000 pounds, now deposited in bonded warehouses m Manila. Other callers this morning included Col. Nicanor Jimenez, chairman of the Philippine panel of the SEATO committee to counteract subversion, who paid his respects before enplaining for Bangkok, Thailand; Rep. Carmen Dinglasan-Consing of Capiz; and Gov. Juan F. Triviño of Camarines Sur.

In other words, a petition that does not show the required percentages is fatally defective and must be dismissed, as the Delfin Petition was, in Santiago. Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty. Only fourteen justices participated in the deliberations as Justice Teodoro R. Padilla took no part on account of his relationship with the lawyer of one of the parties. Both the August 25 petition that included all the provisions, Your Honor, and as amended on August 30. Because we have to include the one that we have inadvertently omitted in the August 25 petition, Your Honor. I relied only to the assurances of the people who are volunteering that they are going to reproduce the signature sheets as well as the draft petition that we have given them, Your Honor.

Judicial power, as I said, refers to ordinary cases but where there is a question as to whether the government had authority or had abused its authority to the extent of lacking jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, that is not a political question. A number of other cases were filed to declare the presidential proclamation null and void. The main defense put up by the government was that the issue was a political question and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. However, a reading of the petitions shows that it has advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.It, therefore, behooves this Court to relax the rules on standing and to resolve the issues presented by it. The cases of Romulo v. Yniguezand Alejandrino v. Quezon,cited by respondents in support of the argument that the impeachment power is beyond the scope of judicial review, are not in point. These cases concern the denial of petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the legislature to perform non- ministerial acts, and do not concern the exercise of the power of judicial review. But did not the people also express their will when they instituted the above-mentioned safeguards in the Constitution? This shows that the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or in the language of Baker v. Carr,”judicially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. It is in the context of the foregoing backdrop of constitutional refinement and jurisprudential application of the power of judicial review that respondents Speaker De Venecia, et.

It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from February to August 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the petition or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC. The Lambino Group are less than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or amended petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the amended petition during the signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very limited copies of the petition. Lambino changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 petition. There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it.