Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

DRIVER FEGARIDO, DRIVING A PUBLIC JEEP, HIT ALCANTARA WHO LATER DIED. REGISTERED OWNER WAS MILAN. IS MILAN LIABLE?

UNDER THE CIVIL CAUSE WHEN AN EMPLOYEE, IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY, CAUSED DAMAGE TO ANOTHER THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE EMPLOYER IS ALSO LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE. THE EMPLOYER MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SHE OBSERVED DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF HIS EMPLOYEE. IN THIS CASE MILAN FAILED TO REBUT SUCH PRESUMPTION.

IN THIS CASE ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES WERE AWARDED.  THE RULING FOLLOWS:

MORAL DAMAGES WERE ALSO AWARDED. THE RULING FOLLOWS:

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WERE ALSO AWARDED. RULING FOLLOWS:

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:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

MR SIMACAS DIED DUE TO PROSTATE CANCER. HE WAS HELPING IN WELDING WORKS. HIS WIFE VIOLETA FILED CLAIMS AT THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION. SSS DENIED THE CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT PROSTATE CANCER IS NOT LISTED AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND THAT VIOLETA FAILED TO PROVE THE RELATION BETWEEN WORK OF HER HUSBAND AND HIS PROSTATE CANCER. COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED SSS. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED C.A. INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW ON EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (PD 626) MUST BE LIBERAL IN FAVOR OF THE WORKER.

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:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE RULING OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS TO WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS VALIDLY TERMINATED, WHETHER THE VARIATION ORDERS WERE PROVEN OR WHETHER PETITIONER COMPLIED WITH THE SCOPE OF WORKS MUST NOT BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS. THERE IS NO LAW GRANTING THE JUDICIARY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRAL AWARD.

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”.