Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2019-0060: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MANUEL C. BULATAO (G.R. NO. 200972. DECEMBER 11, 2019, HERNANDO, J.)  (SUBJECT/S: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; ABANDONMENT AND TERMINATION; DOUBT BEING RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE – EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE) (BRIEF TITLE: PNB VS. BULATAO)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

pnb dispositive

pnb dispositive 2

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

BULATAO WAS IT HEAD OF PNB. HE WAS INDUCED TO RETIRE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF PNB OFFERED RETIREMENT OPTION. AND  HE RETIRED BECAUSE HE DID NOT LIKE WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN HIS  GROUP. LATER HE WITHREW HIS RETIREMENT LETTER AND RESUMED WORKING. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE BOARD APPROVED HIS RESIGNATION. PNB CONSIDER HIS LETTER AS RESIGNATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RETIREMENT SCHEME IN PLACE. SUPREME COURT RULED HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. THE PROMISE OF RETIREMENT TO HIM CONSTITUTES PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. IF THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER HE INTENDED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN, SUCH DOUBT SHALL BE RESOLVED IN HIS FAVOR.

 

WHAT IS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL?

 

BULA-ESTOPPEL 

WHEN IS THERE ABANDONMENT?

 

WHEN THE EMPLOYEE FAILED TO REPORT FOR WORK AND WHEN THERE IS CLEAR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE TO ABANDON HIS WORK AS MANIFESTED BY OVERT ACT TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

 

BULA-ABANDONMENT

  

DID BULATAO COMMIT ABANDONMENT?

 

NO. BULATAO’S FILING OF AN ILLEGAL TERMINATION CASE SHOWS THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION TO SEVER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

  

WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHICH EVIDENCE IS TRUE, THAT DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE. EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE.

 

BULA-DOUBT

 

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.

 

SCD-2019-0060-Philippine National Bank Vs. Manuel C. Bulatao

 

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0059: PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, INC. (G.R. NO. 236293. DECEMBER 10, 2019, PROCESO L. MALIGALIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.) (BRIEF TITLE: MALIGALIG VS SANDIGAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

mali-dispositive

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHOS IS A PUBLIC OFFICER?

 

ONE WHO BY LAW, ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT PERFORMS A PUBLIC FUNCTION. OR ONE IN WHOM A PUBLIC FUNCTION IS INVESTED TO BE EXERCISED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

 

mali-publ officer 1

mali-publ officer 2

 

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.

 

SCD-2019-0059-Proceso L. Maligalig Vs Sandiganbayan Et Al. 

 

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”.

 

CASE 2019-0057: CARISSA E. SANTO VS. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU (G.R. NO. 232522. AUGUST 28, 2019, LAZARO-JAVIER) (SUBJECT/S: RETIREMENT BENEFITS; HOW COMPUTED)  (BRIEF TITLE: SANTO VS UNIVERSITY OF CEBU)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

santo-dispositive

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CEBU OFFERS OPTIONAL RETIREMENT TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED AT LEAST 15 YEARS OF SERVICE. THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT IS COMPUTED AT 15 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE. SANTO, 42 YEARS OLD, APPLIED FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT BUT INSISTS THAT THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT BE COMPUTED AT 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RETIREMENT LAW. UNIVERSITY OF SEBU CONTENDED THAT RETIREMENT LAW DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SANTO IS BELOW 60 YEARS OLD AND THEIR SCHOOL MANUAL EXPRESSLY STATES THAT SUCH OPTIONAL RETIREMENT IS RESIGNATION WITH SEPARATION BENEFIT SUPREME COURT SAID SHE IS ENTILED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER THE RETIREMENT LAW BECAUSE IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THE AMBIGUITY IN THE UNIVERSITY MANUAL (WHETHER RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT) MUST BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE RETIREE. THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

 

WHAT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO BENEFICIARY MUST BE APPLIED. ART. 287 OF THE LABOR CODE IS MORE BENEFICIAL. THUS ITS COMPUTATION OF 22.5 DAYS PER YEAR OF SERVICE MUST BE APPLIED.

 

SANTO 1

 

SANTO 2

 

SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES RETIREMENT PLANS WHICH SET THE MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE  OF EMPLOYEES BELOW 60 YEARS OLD.

 

SANTO 3

 

SUPREME COURT WILL NOT SUSTAIN A RETIREMENT CLAUSE THAT GIVES RETIREES LESS BENEFITS THAT WHAT THE LAW GUARANTEES.

  

SANTO 4

 

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.

 

SCD-2019-0058-Carissa E. Santo Vs. University of Cebu

 

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”.