Latest Entries »

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 11, 2020 and Resolution dated September 24, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161534 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Convergys Philippines, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to PAY petitioner Vincent Michael Banta Moll the following:

I) BACKWAGES reckoned from March 25, 2018 until finality of this  Decision;

2) SEPARATION PAY of one (1) month salary for every year of service;

3) PRO-RATED 13th MONTH PAY for the year 2018;

4) UNPAID SALARY for March 2018; and

5) ATTORNEY’S FEES of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.

These monetary awards shall earn six percent ( 6%) interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Lastly, we find that Convergys shall be solely liable to the above monetary awards. A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it. Thus, as a general rule, an officer may not be held liable for the corporation’s labor obligations unless he or she acted with evident malice and/or bad faith in dismissing an employee.

Labor Arbiter Makasiar properly exonerated respondents Ayers, Valentine, Pontius, Twomey, Gonzales, Sangcal, and Cabugao from all liabilities for lack of showing that they acted with malice or bad faith nor assented to petitioner’s illegal dismissal. In fact, as early as the proceedings before the NLRC, they should have already been dropped as respondents in this case as petitioner did not assail their exoneration from liability by the labor arbiter. As to them, the labor arbiter’s decision had already lapsed into finality.”

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:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated December 2, 2016 and the Resolution dated April 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143770 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, awarding to petitioner Remegio E. Burnea attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary awards due to him, and imposing on all monetary awards legal interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is well to clarify that before the employer bears such burden, it is imperative for the employee to first establish by substantial evidence that he/she was indeed dismissed from employment. Absent such dismissal, there could be no question as to its legality or illegality.36

…………………………..

Nonetheless, since petitioner was awarded salary differentials, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, subject to the three (3)-year prescriptive period, to be reckoned from November 3, 2011 up to the date of his dismissal on November 17, 2013 as alleged in the complaint, he is also entitled to attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award in accordance with Article 11139 of the Labor Code and Article 220840 of the Civil Code, as the latter was clearly compelled to litigate to protect his rights and interests thereto. Finally, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, all monetary awards due to petitioner shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.41

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.

<object class="wp-block-file__embed" data="https://attybulao.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/scd-2021-0009-remegio-e.-burnea-vs-security-trading-corporation-et-al.pdf&quot; type="application/pdf" style="width:100%;height:600px" aria-label="Embed of <br><br><br><br><span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-red-color">scd-2021-0009-remegio-e.-burnea-vs-security-trading-corporation-et-al



scd-2021-0009-remegio-e.-burnea-vs-security-trading-corporation-et-al
Download

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:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 7, 2016 Decision and September 30, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137591 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for a full resolution of the issues.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“In fine, the agrarian laws that grant the DARAB exclusive jurisdiction to
rule on agrarian disputes, as well as those which provide the landless farmers
security of tenure and protect them against eviction from the landholdings, are
without a doubt, laudable. However, these rights, sacred as they are, may not be
enforced against strangers or those who have not consented to the relationship,
personally or through their predecessors. In the case at bar, justice would best be
served by allowing the parties to thresh out their allegations and defenses in a
full blown hearing before the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the action to quiet
title. Certainly, a complete· resolution of the case will benefit both parties as it
will finally settle their respective rights over the subject property.”

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-2021-0008-eduviges-b.-almazan-vs-perla-e.-bacolod-et-alDownload

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”.