To hold a person liable for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code, only a preponderance of evidence is required. An acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to the filing of an action for civil damages, for one may not be criminally liable and still be civilly liable. Thus, the outcome or result of the criminal case, whether an acquittal or conviction, is really inconsequential and will be of no moment in the civil action.

Although one of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party, in the absence of proof thereof the offender would at least be guilty of attempted estafa. Appellant commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but he failed to perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of his own spontaneous desistance but because of his apprehension by the authorities before he could obtain the amount. Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself has been shown, respondent court correctly convicted appellant of attempted estafa.

To forestall the possession by the plaintiff of the property our procedural law provides that the defendant must post a counterbond and must furnish the plaintiff with the copy of the undertaking. Again, if only for the purpose of emphasis, this is required to protect the plaintiff, should his action be adjudged meritorious. We need not mention, that this procedure was purposely formulated to allow the defendant to continue possessing the property. Not to require him to post any bond would likewise, be counter to the objectives and intent sought by the framers of the law. In short, whoever holds the property must post the bond to stand as security to the non-holder pending the final determination of the case.

Historically, legislation involving the adjustment of the minimum wage made use of two methods. The first method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage. The other involves "the salary-ceiling-method" whereby the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling. The first method was adopted in the earlier wage orders, while the latter method was used in R.A. Nos. 6640 and 6727. Prior to this, the salary-ceiling-method was also used in no less than eleven issuances mandating the grant of cost-of-living allowances.

The injured for whom the contract of insurance is intended can sue directly the insurer. The general purpose of statutes enabling an injured person to proceed directly against the insurer is to protect injured persons against the insolvency of the insured who causes such injury, and to give such injured person a certain beneficial interest in the proceeds of the policy, and statutes are to be liberally construed so that their intended purpose may be accomplished. It has even been held that such a provision creates a contractual relation which inures to the benefit of any and every person who may be negligently injured by the named insured as if such injured person were specifically named in the policy.