The burden of proving entitlement to overtime work rests on the employee, as this monetary claim is not incurred in the normal course of business.

It is thus incumbent upon the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days.

(Reggie Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc. and Romulo Par, G.R. No. 224944, May 05, 2021)

The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in determining employees’ wages.

If there is no work performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing, and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working.

(Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439, January 25, 2000)

Under the Three-Fold Liability Rule, the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal, and administrative liability. (Silvino Matobato v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)

An action of each can proceed independently of the others. (Jose Romeo Escandor v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211962)

Dual citizenship arises when as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.

 

Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.

 

While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.

 

(Ernesto Mercado v. Eduardo Barrios Manzano and COMELEC, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999)

The Supreme Court, in the case of Allan John Uy Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., (G.R. No. 222816, October 04, 2017) ruled that verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal.

An employee’s guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for his or her dismissal.

 

Hence, conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of employment. (St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Maria Theresa Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015)

The charge of drug abuse inside the company’s premises and during working hours against constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination.

The Supreme Court took judicial notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question therefore that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer.

(Eduardo Bughaw, Jr. vs. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 173151, March 28, 2008)

A non-stock corporation may not be converted into a stock corporation without liquidating its assets. (SEC-OGC Opinion No. 22-14 Re: Legality of Converting a Non-Stock, Non-Profit Corporation to a Stock Corporation, dated October 7, 2022)

The De Facto Officer doctrine is primarily for protecting those who rely on the official acts of persons discharging the duties of a public office, without being lawful officers. It is meant to ensure the functioning of the government “despite technical defects in the official’s title to office. (Lee Arroyo vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R No. 202860, April 10, 2019)