A stipulation pour autrui is one in favor of a third person who may demand its fulfillment, provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. An incidental benefit or interest, which another person gains, is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person. The requisites for such contract are: (1) the stipulation in favor of a third person must be a part of the contract, and not the contract itself; (2) the favorable stipulation should not be conditioned or compensated by any kind of obligation; and (3) neither of the contracting parties bears the legal representation or authorization of the third party.

Conspiracy denotes an intentional participation in a criminal transaction, with a view to the furtherance of a common design and purpose.  It imputes criminal liability to an accused for the acts of another or others, regardless of the nature and extent of his own participation. In a conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular act of an accused becomes of secondary relevance.  Thus, it is essential that an accused must know from the information whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co-accused as well. An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) it follows the words of the statute creating the offense and reasonably informs the accused of the character of the offense he is charged with conspiring to commit; or (2) following the statute, contains a sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy; or (3) alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the language of the respective statutes defining them.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him is explicit in Sec. 1(b) Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. To ensure that the due process rights of an accused are observed, every indictment must embody the essential elements of the crime charged with reasonable particularity as to the name of the accused, the time and place of commission of the offense, and the circumstances thereof.  One such particular circumstance is conspiracy where two or more persons are charged in an information. 

Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to the twin reliefs of (a) either reinstatement or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable, and (b) backwages. Both are distinct reliefs given to alleviate the economic damage suffered by an illegally dismissed employee and, thus, the award of one does not bar the other.  Both reliefs are rights granted by substantive law which cannot be defeated by mere procedural lapses. Substantive rights like the award of backwages resulting from illegal dismissal must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules.

The reason for suspending actions for claims against the corporation should not be difficult to discover. It is not really to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to substitute the defendant in any pending action against it before any court, tribunal, board or body. Obviously, the real justification is to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the ‘rescue’ of the debtor company. To allow such other action to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.”