ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

The Supreme Court decides: The Court ruled that the property is not conjugal. The property was acquired in 1978, before Lani and Stephen’s marriage in 1983, and was registered solely in Stephen’s name.

According to the Civil Code, property acquired before marriage remains the exclusive property of the individual, unless proven otherwise. The presumption of conjugal ownership only applies to property acquired during the marriage. Since Lani admitted the property was bought before the marriage and was purchased with Stephen’s personal funds, she could not claim it as conjugal.

Breastfeeding Awareness Month (R.A. No. 10028 of 2010)

The theme for the 2024 commemoration is “Closing the Gap: Breastfeeding Support for All,” urging both governments and the private sector to reevaluate and enhance policies and workplace arrangements that assist breastfeeding mothers. The Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009, or Republic Act 10028, requires all establishments, whether public or private, to provide support for breastfeeding in the workplace.

Legalities of Random Drug Testing for Employees

“Employers shall require their officials and employees to undergo a random drug test in accordance with the company’s work rules and regulations for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Strict confidentiality shall be observed with regard to screening and the screening results.” (Section C, par. b, subpar. I, DOLE D.O. No. 53, s. 2003)

Can an employee be dismissed because of his/her disease?

For a dismissal on the ground of disease to be considered valid, two requisites must concur: (a) the employee suffers from a disease which cannot be cured within six months and his/her continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his/her health or to the health of his/her co-employees, and (b) a certification to that effect must be issued by a competent public health authority.

Can someone still claim compensation for the income the deceased would have earned if there is no written proof?

Lack of documentary evidence is not fatal to a claim for the deceased’s lost earning capacity. Testimony from a competent witness familiar with his salary is a sufficient basis to determine the deceased’s income before his death. (Vivian Torreon v. Generoso Aparra, Jr., G.R. No. 188493, December 13, 2017)

When is preponderance of evidence applicable?

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.Xxx In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues involved.

The Supreme Court decides: The trial court’s ruling lacked sufficient analysis of factors such as Winston’s health, safety, and emotional well-being, as well as his preference and any potential detrimental conditions. This oversight indicates that the court did not fully address the essential factors required to determine the most suitable custodial arrangement for Winston.

In this case, since Catherine was not married to respondent, she had sole parental authority over her illegitimate son, Winston. After her death, custody was granted to Winston’s collateral grandparents under the Family Code. This substitute parental authority is not permanent and can be reviewed by the court, which must consider the child’s best interests.