The case revolves around the legality of benefits granted by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) under Notices of Disallowance (NDs). The central issue is whether PHIC had the authority to grant these benefits, which include productivity bonuses and allowances, beyond its standard compensation.

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.

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.

Retirement benefits under this law are calculated as 1/2 month’s salary for each year of service, based on 22.5 days per year, for employees with at least five years of service. Sampana, having turned 60 on February 16, 2016, and having served TMTCP for over five years, met the eligibility criteria for retirement benefits when he expressed his intent to retire in November 2016. Furthermore, he reached the compulsory retirement age of

The case of Raymond Ang vs. Corazon Ang Sy and Belen Ang Casimiro (G.R. No. 234631, December 03, 2023) Photo from Unsplash | Maria Krasnova 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 Read more about The Supreme Court decides: When a party dies and no heir is willing to substitute them in the case, the appeal can be denied without passing upon the substantive issues of the case, as any disposition on the merits of the case ceases to have any practical value.[…]

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.

Settled is the rule that in actions based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the presence of the foregoing elements by preponderance of evidence. They cannot rely on mere allegations but must present such evidence more convincing as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
In this case, however, while the death certificate shows the damage or injury sustained by Adelaida, specifically, cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension, the totality of the evidence failed to establish the second and third elements of a quasi-delict.

The petitioner did not establish with substantial evidence her employment with M.I.Y. The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by employing a two-tiered test: the four-fold test and the economic dependence test. The petitioner failed to establish the four-factors in the four-fold test. Subsequently, the Court Court only applies the economic dependence test when the control test is insufficient.

The only qualified beneficiaries to claim death benefits are the legitimate spouse of the decedent, and the decedent’s children, whether legitimate and illegitimate. (Elenita Macalinao, et al. v. Cerina Macalinao, G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024)