J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

 DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

1. The March 14, 2019 Resolution of Branch 256, Regional Trial Court,
   Muntinlupa City in Spec. Proc. No. 18-371 is NULLIFIED and SET
   ASIDE for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
   lack or in excess of jurisdiction, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 179-
   2018;
2. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court in the
   Resolution dated January 8, 2020 is DECLARED as permanent
   effective immediately. The Honorable Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz,
   Acting Presiding Judge, her successor in Branch 256, Regional Trial
   Court, Muntinlupa City, representatives, agents, and all other persons
   acting on her behalf are PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED from
   implementing and enforcing the Resolution dated March 14, 2019 of
   Branch 256, Regional Trial Court, Muntirilupa City ih Spec. Proc. No.
   18-371;
3. The Decision dated September 3, 2007 of Branch 48, Regional Trial
   Court, Urdaneta City in Criminal Cases Nos. U-11223, U-11226, and
   U-11227 is.REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa
   City for the. determination of: (1) the proper penalty/penalties in
   accordance with Republic Act No. 10951; and (2) whe):her respondent
   ANTHONY ARCHANGEL y SY is entitled to be immediately
   released on account of full service of his sentences, as modified.
   

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

In the case of Abalos,7 9 this Court found that the retroactive application of
Republic Act No. 10951 prejudiced the accused. Thus, the penalty under the
RPC prevailed because it was beneficial to the accused.

Applying th<;: applicable law and jurisprudence, We find that Section 85 of
Republic Act No. 10951 is not favorable to respondent Sy. As correctly pointed
out by the OSG, the new penalty under Republic Act No. 10951 has the effect
of unduly raising the penalty for two counts of Estafa and aggravating the
same. 80 Instead, the original penalty imposed by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta
City, which is eight years maximum for each of Criminal Case Nos. U-11223
and U-11226, should be maintained.

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:

DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC HELPER

PETITIONER WAS A DOMESTIC HELPER

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:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The November 23, 2012 and April 23, 2013 Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115794, insofar as it ordered petitioner
Jose Leni Z. Solidum to refund respqndent Smart Communications, Inc. the
additional wages and benefits he received by virtue of the 10th Alias Writ of
Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. NCR-00-11-09564-
05, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SMART FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER AS MANDATED BY ARBITER’S DECISION. BUT SMART PAID HIM SALARIES TOTALLING P15,889,871,04. HOWEVER NLRC REVERSED THE DECISION. SMART IS NOW ASKING THE RETURN OF THE P15,889,871.04. SUPREME COURT SAID SMART CANNOT DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT. IT FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER. UNTIL THE DECISION WAS REVERSED WITH FINALITY PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SAID SALARIES.

All told, the CA misapplied the Two-Fold Test resulting in the erroneous
order for Solidum to reimburse PHP 15,889.871.04 to Smart. The appellate
court incorrectly attributed Solidum ‘s alleged delay in filing his claim for
additional salaries and benefits as a reason for its order of reimbursement in
favor of Smart. However, as explained earlier, the term “delay” in the TwoF
old Test context is directly linked to the employer who has refused to comply
with the labor arbiter’s reinstatement order before its reversal. Importantly,
any perceived delay on Solidum’s part in seeking the computation and
payment of his accumulated wages and benefits is considered inconsequential
due to the immediate and self-executory nature of the labor arbiter’s decision.

Given the facts and circumstances, the delay in this case can be traced
back to the unjustified actions of Smart. It is crucial to reiterate that Article
223, paragraph 3, of the Labor Code mandates the employer to promptly
reinstate the dismissed employee, either by actual reinstatement under the
conditions prevailing before the dismissal, or through his or her inclusion in
the payroll. Smart’s failure to exercise either option in a timely manner makes
it accountable for Solidum’s accrued salaries and benefits until the arbiter’s
decision was overturned by the NLRC. Notably, since the NLRC’s May 29,
2009 Decision attained finality on August 10, 2009, Solidum is entitled to the
PHP 15,889,871.04 claimed under the 10th Alias Writ, representing his
accrued earnings from before August l 0, 2009, covering the period from July
13, 2006, to January 26, 2009.

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”.