DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE CTA ISSUED A RESOLUTION WHICH ENJOINED THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FROM COLLECTING THE DEFICIENCY TAXES AGAINST QLDI ON THE GROUND THAT THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE ASSESSED DEFICIENCT TAXES HAD ALREADY EXPIRED.  CIR FILED A PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CTA’S ORDER. SUPREME COURT SAID CTA ORDER HAS LEGAL BASIS. CIR FAILED TO SHOW THE MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INVATION OF A RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED.

CIR ARGUES THAT CTA HAS NO POWER TO ISSUE WRIT OF INJUNCTION AND PROHIBITION BUT ONLY SUSPEND COLLECTION OF TAXES. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE GENERAL RULE THAT INJUNCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF TAXES ADMITS OF AN EXCEPTION: WHEN COLLECTION MAY JEOPARDIZE THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE TAXPAYER.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE FACTS ARE STATED BELOW:

PETITIONER THEN FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. RTC RULED THAT IT IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE BASED ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES THERE IS NEED FOR TRIAL TO ASSESS THE FACTS. CA AFFIRMED. SUPREME COURT ALSO AFFIRMED.

WHAT IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT?

HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES OF FACT?

THE COURT MUST EXAMINE THE ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS OF THE PARTIES AND WHETHER THE ISSUE POSED IS PATENTLY INCONSEQUENTIAL AS TO CONSTITUTE A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT.

PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT IN THEIR RESPONDENTS, THEY DID NOT MADE SPECIFIC DENIALS OF COMPLAINT’S ALLEGATIONS OF FACT. COURT SAID THEY NEED NOT USE THE WORD “SPECIFIC”.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

BALLESTEROS WAS DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT. THE GROUNDS WERE: SHE INCURRED TARDINESS, ABSENCES, FAILURE TO OBEY OFFICE PROCEDURES AND FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR P1,2000.00. THE LABOR ARBITER DISMISSED THE CASE. NLRC REVERSED LA DECISION AND GRANTED RELIEFS TO BALLESTEROS. CA AFFIRMED. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.

EMPLOYER ALLEGED THAT BALLESTEROS COMMITTED GROSS NEGLECT OF DULY BECAUSE OF HER HABITUAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE, HABITUAL TARDINESS AND UNDERTILE. CA FOUND THAT THE COMPANY FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR ESTABLISHING GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AS JUST CAUSE FOR TERMINATION. HOW IS THIS APPLIED IN THE CASE?

EMPLOYER CONTENDS THAT BALLESTEROS DISMISSAL WAS DUE TO HER OPEN AND WILFULL DISOBEDINCE  OF COMPANY PROCEDURE IN THE PREPARATION OF DEPOSIT SLIPS. THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE MUST BE CHARACTERIZED BY WRONGFUL AND PERVERSE ATTITUDE. NOT PRESENT HERE.

EMPLOYER SAID BALLESTEROS WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE DUE TO MONETARY SHORTAGE OF P1,100.00. SUCH SHORTAGE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL AND SEVERE. AND IN FACT THE MONEY WAS RETURNED.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.