J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated July 12, 2019 and Resolution dated November 22, 2019, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Christopher C. Calera is declared TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED for sea duties. Respondent Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc. is ORDERED to PAY petitioner:

1) Total and Permanent Disability Benefits ofUSD60,000.00; and

2) Attorney’s Fees of ten percent ( 10%) of the total monetary award.

The total monetary award shall earn six percent ( 6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

As worded, the medical report was far from final. For one, the company-designated physicians made no mention of any ~isability rating nor any declaration as to petitioner’s fitness or unfitness for further sea duty. For another, the alleged finality of the medical report was negated by the fact that petitioner needed further medical treatment, i.e., he was referred for four (4) sets of physical therapy with six (6) sessions each. That he was not re[1]deployed after the incident at the Holiday Inn lends credence to the fact that he still needed further medical attention and far from healed.

The Court, therefore, finds the June 13, 201 7 medical report to have fallen short of the parameters for a final and definite medical report. Even if the company-designated physicians were justified in extending petitioner’s medical treatment to more than 120 days, yet, as earlier stated, the alleged final medical report is far from final.

Sans a valid final and definite assessment from the company-designated physicians within the 120/240-day period, the law already steps in to consider petitioner’s disability as total and permanent.59 By operation oflaw, therefore, petitioner is deemed totally and permanently disabled.

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 appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 26, 2019 and Resolution dated October 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08244 are AFFIRMED. Appellant SPOl ALEXANDER ESTABILLO y P ALARA is found GUILTY of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of Pl0,000,000.00 for each offense.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PDEA FAILED TO DESTROY THE BRICKS OF COCAINE IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. BUT THE COURT SAID THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED DRUGS. AT MOST THE VIOLATION COULD BE GROUND FOR POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

The Court recognizes though that the PDEA’s failure to destroy the (4) bricks of cocaine beforehand nevertheless constituted a breach of Section 21(4), RA 9165. To repeat, however, this would not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the entirety of the seized items but could, at most, be ground for possible disciplinary action.

All told, the prosecution has successfully established the chain of custody of the seized items. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of these seized items are deemed preserved. The corpus delicti of the crimes charged against appellant were therefore established. As such, there is no reason to depart from the assailed verdicts of conviction.

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 shop

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 12, 2018 and Resolution dated July 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139311 a re REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint in NLRC NCR Case No. 07-10180-13 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PNCC STOPPED GIVING MID-YEAR BONUS TO ITS EMPLOYEES. THE LABOR ARBITER, NLRC AND C.A. RULED THAT PNCC SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING MID-YEAR BONUS ON THE BASIS OF NON-DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. SUPREME COURT SAID UNDER R.A. 10149 GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, WHETHER CHARTERED OR NON-CHARTERED SHOULD NO LONGER GRANT ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY FROM THE PRESIDENT. GRANTING OF THESE BENEFITS MUST CONFORM TO THE COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS UNDER BY APPLICABLE LAWS.

In that case, employees of GSIS Family Bank demanded for the payment of their Christmas bonus which had been annually given them pursuant to their CBA with GSIS Family Bank, a non-chartered GOCC. GSIS Family Bank was advised by the Governance Commission that in view of the enactment of RA l O 149, GSIS Family Bank should no longer grant any additional benefits to its employees without the requisite authority from the President. Thenceforth, GSIS Family Bank stopped granting Christmas bonus to its employees. The Court ruled that while GOCCs without original chatiers are covered by the Labor Code, employees of GOCCs are bereft of any right to negotiate the economic terms of their employment, i. e. salaries, emoluments, incentives and other benefits, with their employers since these matters are covered by compensation and position standards issued by the Department of Budget and Management and applicable laws. GSJS clarified that RA IO 149 applies to both chartered and non-chartered GOCCs.

More, citing PCSO vs. Pulido-Tan, 46 GSIS reiterated that the power of a government-owned or controlled corporation to fix salaries or _ allowances of its employees is subject to and must conform to the compensation and classification standards laid down by applicable laws. For RA 10149 does not differentiate between chartered and non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporations; hence, the provisions of this law equally apply to all GOCCs.

Consequently, therefore, PNCC did not v iolate the non-diminution rule when it desisted from granting mid-year bonus to its employees starting 2013. True, between 1992 and 2011 , PNCC invariably granted this benefit to its employees and never before revoked this grant in strict adherence to the non-diminution rule under Artic le 100 of the Labor Code. Nonetheless, with the subsequent enactment of RA l 0 l 49 in 2011, PNCC may no longer grant this benefit without first securing the requisite authority from the President. As borne by the records, PNCC failed to obtain this authority in v iew of the position taken by the GCG not to forward the request to the President. GCG cited as reasons the infirmity of the grant and the extraneous application of the non-diminution rule thereto.

All told, the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the Cou1i of Appeals each gravely e rred when they peremptorily compelled PNCC to release the questioned mid-year bonus to the employees.

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”.