Anselmo Bulanon alleged he was hired as a Welder/Fabricator by Eric Ng Mendoza, who owned several furniture businesses including Mendco Development Corporation, Pinnacle Casting Corporation, Mastercraft Phil., Inc., and Jacquer International. On January 6, 2006, Bulanon filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against Eric and his companies for various unpaid benefits and lack of social security coverage.

The court clarified that copyright infringement occurs when an unauthorized party exercises economic rights, including communication to the public, without consent. Filscap, accredited to enforce copyright, had valid standing to sue. The court noted that Home Cable’s broadcast of music through cable TV constituted a public communication of copyrighted works.

The conviction required proof of: (1) Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, with or without consent; (2) use of coercion, deception, or exploitation methods; (3) exploitation for purposes such as sexual exploitation, forced labor, or organ removal; and (4) the victim being under 18 years old. The court confirmed that all these elements were met in this case, establishing the guilt of the accused.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of Revenue Memorandum Circulars No. 46-2008 and No. 31-2011, which imposed additional requirements for VAT zero-rating on services provided to entities engaged in international air transport operations. Manila Peninsula argued that VAT zero-rating for such services required only two conditions: the service must be provided by a VAT-registered service provider in the Philippines and rendered to persons engaged in international air transport. In contrast, the CIR contended that the additional conditions stipulated in the circulars—namely, that the services must pertain to the transport of goods or passengers directly from a Philippine port to a foreign port without stopping at any other Philippine port—were also required.

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.