Paying taxes is a fundamental aspect of everyday life for individuals and businesses alike, serving as a cornerstone of modern society’s functioning and development. The consequences of not paying taxes can have profound impacts on both individuals and society as a whole. As Benjamin Franklin said, “…but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes”.
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609 August 23, 1988)
In light of recent legal and jurisprudential developments during the proceedings of this case, the Court has decided to send the matter back to the appellate court for the admission of new evidence.
It is crucial to note that the petitioner’s repatriation was not due to medical reasons but was part of a group transfer to another vessel. Upon his return to the Philippines, the respondent informed him of plans to transfer him to another vessel to fulfill his contract, indicating that his disembarkation was not medically motivated.
The 2024 National Science and Technology Week (NSTW) will be held on November 27 to December 1, 2024 at The Atrium, Limketkai Center, Cagayan de Oro City with the theme “Siyensya, Teknolohiya at Inobasyon: Kabalikat sa Matatag, Maginhawa, at Panatag na Kinabukasan (Providing Solutions and Opening Opportunities in the Green Economy)”.
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609 August 23, 1988)
Joint venture is an organization formed for some temporary purpose.
A joint venture, therefore, is akin to a partnership, the essential elements of which are as follows:
(1) an agreement to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund; and
(2) an intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties.
(Carlos Valdes vs. La Colina Development Corporation, G.R. No. 208140, July 12, 2021)
The General Manager of Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (FILSCAP) said that “”If we are to be strict about it, song covers uploaded on the internet is illegal. Copyrighted music cannot be played or performed to the public without permission. They’re not supposed to, without a license”.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (Section 14, par. 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution)
Habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights. (Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)) It is “a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” (Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 (1885)) Habeas corpus does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration, nor does it punish the State for imposing it. Instead, it is a challenge to unlawful custody, and when the writ issues it prevents further illegal custody. (Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)
