Archive for August, 2012


TRIVIA 0039: WHO IS CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO?

 

PERSONAL LIFE

 

  • BORN ON 02 JULY 1960 IN MANILA. HER FATHER IS A NATIVE OF SIASI, SULU. HER MOTHER IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER.

 

  • SHE IS MARRIED TO MARIO JOSE E. SERENO. THEY ARE BLESSED WITH TWO CHILDREN, MARIA SOPHIA AND JOSE LORENZO.

 

  • MR. JOSE E. SERENO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERATION OF PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIES; AND THE COMMITTEE ON TARIFFS OF THE PHILIPPINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY. HE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES. HE SERVED IN CONCURRENT CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PHILIPPINE PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC. AND PHILIPPINE ADHESIVES INC. (1999-2002). (FROM THE WEBSITE: FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT: FINANCE OR PENANCE FOR THE POOR?)

 

APPOINTMENT AT SC

 

  • APPOINTED 169TH SC JUSTICE ON 16 AUGUST 2010. SHE  IS THE YOUNGEST APPOINTEE TO THE SUPREME COURT SINCE MANUEL MORAN IN 1945, AND THE 13TH WOMAN APPOINTED AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. SHE IS THE 24TH CHIEF JUSTICE APPOINTED 24 AUGUST 2012. SHE IS THE FIRST WOMAN CHIEF JUSTICE.

 

EDUCATION

 

  • COMPLETED HER ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN 1972 FROM THE KAMUNING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. SHE WAS THE CLASS SALUTATORIAN.

 

  • COMPLETED HER SECONDARY EDUCATION AT THE QUEZON CITY HIGH SCHOOL WITH HONORS.

 

  • EARNED A BACHELOR’S DEGREE (AB) IN ECONOMICS AT THE ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY IN 1980.

 

  • FINISHED BACHELOR OF LAWS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES IN 1984. SHE GRADUATED VALEDICTORIAN AND CUM LAUDE.

 

  •  FINISHED MASTER OF ARTS IN ECONOMICS AT THE UP SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS IN 1992.

 

  • ALSO IN 1992 SHE WAS AWARDED A DE WITTE FELOWSHIP AND A FORD-ROCKEFELLER SCHOLARSHIP TO PURSUE MASTER OF LAWS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, USA. SHE EARNED A MASTER OF LAWS  IN 1993.

 

 

WORK EXPERIENCE

 

  • WORKED IN  SYCIP SALAZAR FELICIANO AND HERNANDEZ LAW FIRM A LAW FIRM AFTER GRADUATION 1N 1984 UP TO 1986.

 

  • TAUGHT AT UP COLLEGE OF LAW FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS (1986-2002). TAUGHT CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LAW. ADMINISTERED THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STUDIES (1996-1999) AND THE INFORMATION AND PUBLICATION DIVISION.

 

  • STARTING IN 1994 UP TO 2008, SHE SERVED AS LEGAL COUNSEL OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENT OFFICES SUCH AS THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP), OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), DEPT. OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (DTI), AND WTO-AFTA.

 

  • BECAME ALSO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

 

  • AT AGE 38 SHE WAS APPOINTED LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATIONS’ APPELATE BODY SECRETARIAT IN GENEVA.

 

  • THE ONLY FEMALE MEMBER OF THE 1999 PREPARATORY COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM. SHE WAS ELECTED CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION’S STEERING COMMITTEE.

 

  • IN 1995, SHE SERVED AS CONSULTANT FOR JUDICIAL REFORM OF THE UNDP, WB, AND USAID.  SHE SERVED IN THIS CAPACITY UP TO 2002.

 

  • SHE  WAS A LECTURER AT THE DEPT. OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DFA) FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE FROM 1996 TO 2007.

 

  • SHE SERVED AS A LECTURER IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE LAW AT THE ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT  IN 2000.

 

  • SHE WAS LECTURING AT THE MURDOCHUNIVERSITY  ON INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FROM 2001 T0 2002.

 

  • SHE ALSO LECTURED ON INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA FROM 2003 UP TO 2007.

 

  • IN 2004, SHE WAS A LECTURER ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW AT THE HAGUEACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

  • CO-FOUNDED ACCESSLAW, A CORPORATION THAT PROVIDED THE FIRST ANNOTATED ELECTRONIC RESEARCH SYSTEM IN PHILIPPINE LAW. SHE WAS PRESIDENT OF ACCESSLAW AT THE TIME SHE WAS APOINTED SC JUSTICE.

 

  • SHE SERVED  AS A CO-COUNSEL WITH JUSTICE FLORENTINO FELICIANO ON THE FRAPORT CASE BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND IN THE PHILIPPINE AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC. (PIATCO) BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE-INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES WON BOTH CASES.

 

  • AT THE ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SHE WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ITS THINK-TANK – THE AIMPOLICYCENTER. SHE HELD SAID POSITION AT THE TIME SHE WAS APPOINTED JUSTICE.

 

AWARDS

 

  • SELECTED AS ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING WOMEN IN THE NATION’S SERVICE (TOWNS) FOR LAW.

 

  • 2000 MOST OUTSTANDING ALUMNA AWARD, QUEZON CITYHIGH SCHOOL.

 

  • 2003 MOST OUSTANDING ALUMNA AWARD, KAMUNINGELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

 

  • 1991 PROVINCIAL CITATION, CAMARINES SUR

LEGAL NOTE 0131: ON TERMINATION/DISMISSAL OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. CAN HE/SHE BE TERMINATED ON GROUND OF CHRONIC TARDINESS? SHOULD EMPLOYER INFORM HIM/HER AT THE TIME OF HIRING THAT ONE STANDARD IS: NO TARDINESS? WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATING A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE?

 

SOURCE: MYLENE CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK (G.R. NO. 186169, 12 AUGUST 2012, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. (BRIEF TITLE: CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK).

 

=======================

 

 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

 

In sum, petitioner was validly dismissed from probationary employment before the expiration of her 6-month probationary employment contract. If the termination is for cause, it may be done anytime during the probation; the employer docs not have to wait until the probation period is over. With a valid reason for petitioner’s dismissal coupled with the proper observance of due process, the claim for back wages must necessarily fail.

In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

=======================

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGESTS

 

 

CARVAJAL, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, FILED A CASE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. SHE WON. BUT SHE FILED AN APPEARL AT NLRC QUESTIONING THE COMPUTATION OF BACKWAGES.  RESPONDENT BANK RAISED THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. NLRC UPHOLD ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. BUT CA RULED THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. AT SC  CARVAJAL ARGUED THE ISSUE ON DISMISSAL MUST NOT BE RAISED BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL WHEN THE BANK DID NOT APPEAL THE ARBITER’S DECISION. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. AN APPEAL, ONCE ACCEPTED BY SC, THROWS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR REVIEW AND SC CAN REVIEW MATTERS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED AS ERROR IF THEIR CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY FOR A JUST RESOLUTION OF THE CASE.

 

 

“Truly, it is axiomatic that an appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the entire case open to review, and that this Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

CARVAJALARGUED THAT SHE COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF HER CHRONIC TARDINESS BECAUSE WHEN SHE WAS NOT HIRED SHE WAS NOT INFORMED THAT NOT INCURRING  “CHRONIC TARTIDESS” IS A REASONABLE STANDARD SHE MUST OBSERVE. THE IMPLEMENTING RULES PROVIDE THAT WHEN NO STANDARDS ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF EMPLOYMENT, HE SHALL BE DEEMED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. IT IS BUT COMMON SENSE THAT SHE MUST ABIDE BY THE WORK HOURS IMPOSED BY THE BANK. PUNCTUALITY IS A REASONABLE STANDARD IMPOSED ON EVERY EMPLOYEE.  THE RULE ON REASONABLE STANDARDS MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO ENGAGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO EXCULPATE A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE WHO ACTS IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON SENSE, IN REGARD TO WHICH THERE IS NO NEED TO SPELL OUT A POLICY OR STANDARD TO BE MET.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CAUSES FOR TERMINATING A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE?

 

 

THERE ARE THREE:

 

 

(1) A JUST CAUSE  OR

 

 

(2) AN AUTHORIZED CAUSE AND

 

 

(3) WHEN HE FAILS TO QUALIFY AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE EMPLOYER.22

 

“A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or

authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.”

 

 

READ THE FULL CASE BY DOWNLOADING THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2012-0067-CARVAJAL-AUG 2102

 

 

SC-2012-0067: MYLENE CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK (G.R. NO. 186169, 12 AUGUST 2012, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. (BRIEF TITLE: CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK).

 

=======================

 

 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

 

 

In sum, petitioner was validly dismissed from probationary employment before the expiration of her 6-month probationary employment contract. If the termination is for cause, it may be done anytime during the probation; the employer docs not have to wait until the probation period is over. With a valid reason for petitioner’s dismissal coupled with the proper observance of due process, the claim for back wages must necessarily fail.

 

 

In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

 

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

=======================

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGESTS

 

 

CARVAJAL, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, FILED A CASE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. SHE WON. BUT SHE FILED AN APPEARL AT NLRC QUESTIONING THE COMPUTATION OF BACKWAGES.  RESPONDENT BANK RAISED THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. NLRC UPHOLD ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. BUT CA RULED THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. AT SC  CARVAJAL ARGUED THE ISSUE ON DISMISSAL MUST NOT BE RAISED BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL WHEN THE BANK DID NOT APPEAL THE ARBITER’S DECISION. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. AN APPEAL, ONCE ACCEPTED BY SC, THROWS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR REVIEW AND SC CAN REVIEW MATTERS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED AS ERROR IF THEIR CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY FOR A JUST RESOLUTION OF THE CASE.

 

 

“Truly, it is axiomatic that an appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the entire case open to review, and that this Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

CARVAJALARGUED THAT SHE COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF HER CHRONIC TARDINESS BECAUSE WHEN SHE WAS NOT HIRED SHE WAS NOT INFORMED THAT NOT INCURRING  “CHRONIC TARTIDESS” IS A REASONABLE STANDARD SHE MUST OBSERVE. THE IMPLEMENTING RULES PROVIDE THAT WHEN NO STANDARDS ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF EMPLOYMENT, HE SHALL BE DEEMED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. IT IS BUT COMMON SENSE THAT SHE MUST ABIDE BY THE WORK HOURS IMPOSED BY THE BANK. PUNCTUALITY IS A REASONABLE STANDARD IMPOSED ON EVERY EMPLOYEE.  THE RULE ON REASONABLE STANDARDS MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO ENGAGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO EXCULPATE A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE WHO ACTS IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON SENSE, IN REGARD TO WHICH THERE IS NO NEED TO SPELL OUT A POLICY OR STANDARD TO BE MET.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CAUSES FOR TERMINATING A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE?

 

 

THERE ARE THREE:

 

 

(1) A JUST CAUSE  OR

 

 

(2) AN AUTHORIZED CAUSE AND

 

 

(3) WHEN HE FAILS TO QUALIFY AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE EMPLOYER.22

 

 

“A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or

authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.”

 

 

READ THE FULL CASE BY DOWNLOADING THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2012-0067-CARVAJAL-AUG 2102