Photo from Pexels | Tima Miroshnichenko The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Read more about The Supreme Court decides: A violation of Procurement Laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.[…]

In this case, the records show that Jovelyn had served her sentence from November 24, 2011 up to the time this case was decided by the Supreme Court in 2023. In total, Jovelyn had been in prison for almost twelve (12) years – which is more than her maximum imposable penalty of ten (10) years and eight (8) months.

In the case of Castillo vs. Asuncion, the Supreme Court fined a judge for undue delay after taking seven years to resolve a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction holding that the constitutionally-guaranteed right of all persons to speedy disposition of cases is the cornerstone of the Judiciary.

In the case of Leo Abad, Romeo Abella et. al vs. San Roque Metals Inc., G.R. No. 255368, May 29, 2024, the Supreme Court held that compromise agreements and settlements between employers and employees that offer employees excessively low amounts are invalid.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Antonio M. Talaue, G.R. No. 248652, June 19, 2024, the Supreme Court held that a mayor does not have the positive duty to remit the GSIS premium contributions of all employees within his political subdivision.

The Local Government Code of 1991 refers to municipal mayors as “chief executives” and not “heads of offices” as contemplated under Section 52(g) of RA No. 8291. Moreover, nowhere in the Local Government Code of 1991 does it include the remittance of GSIS premiums as part of the duties of a mayor.

In the case of Bartolome vs. Toyota Quezon Avenue Inc., et al., G.R. No. 254465, April 3, 2024, the Supreme Court has held that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive dismissal.

In the case of C.P. Reyes Hospital vs. Barbosa, G.R. No. 228357, April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that backwages due to the illegally dismissed probationary employees are not limited to the unexpired portion of the probationary period but cover the time when the compensation was withheld up to reinstatement.

In the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SI YOUNG OH a.k.a. “STEVE OH,” G.R. No. 262632, June 5, 2024 the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the consent of the minor victim is immaterial in human trafficking cases.

In the case of Teodoro B. Bunayog vs. Foscon Shipmanagement Inc.,/ Green Maritime Co., Ltd.,/ Evelyn M. Defensor, G.R. No. 253480, April 25, 2023, consistent with the Court’s constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor, the Court laid down guidelines to govern the disability benefits claims where the seafarer requests for a third doctor referral.

In the case Argelyn M. Labargan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 246824, December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized that statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties, unless the prosecution establishes that they were uttered with actual malice.