ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

The Supreme Court decides: The parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.

In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. In this regard, preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term ‘greater weight of the evidence’ or ‘greater weight of the credible evidence.

The Supreme Court decides: The extent of protection granted to patent holders is limited to the claims of their patent.

The importance of patents as a tool for national development and economic advancement cannot be overemphasized. They ensure the flow of knowledge and information by encouraging inventors to disclose their discoveries to the public. In exchange, inventors are given market exclusivity or the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing a patented product or product obtained from a patented process. However, like any other intellectual property right, the exercise of this right is not without limitations. The extent of protection granted to patent holders is limited to the claims of their patent.

The Supreme Court decides: (1) If a taxpayer does not agree to a compromise, the compromise penalty cannot be enforced because mutual agreement is necessary for a compromise to be valid. (2) Deficiency interest and delinquency interest can be imposed at the same time.

· A compromise penalty cannot be enforced if the taxpayer does not agree to the compromise because a compromise must be mutually agreed upon.
· Deficiency interest and delinquency interest can be simultaneously imposed.

The Supreme Court decides: An employee who was hired two months after the beginning of a project cannot be considered as a project-based employee.

The employee’s signing of the employment contract more than two months after the project had commenced logically implies that he was not apprised of his status as a project-based employee when he was engaged.

 

Employers who assert that a worker is a project-based employee must be substantiate that the duration and scope of employment were explicitly determined at the time of engagement.

The Supreme Court decides: An illegally dismissed employee is not required to return the wages he received during his reinstatement prior to the reversal of the labor arbiter’s decision.

An illegally dismissed employee is not required to return the wages he received during his reinstatement prior to the reversal of the labor arbiter’s decision.

The decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. (Article 229, Labor Code)

The Supreme Court decides: Surviving Spouse is entitled to SSS Pension even if the marriage was contracted after the spouse’s disability. (Belinda D.R. Dolera v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 253940, October 24, 2023)

The proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law is unconstitutional as it violates the due process and equal protection of the Constitution. (Belinda D.R. Dolera v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 253940, October 24, 2023)

NATURE OF A LITIGATION FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS

The case of RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation v. Floserfino G. Ross and Antonia T. Ross (G.R. No. 259832, November 6, 2023) Photo from Unsplash | Medienstürmer 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 Read more about NATURE OF A LITIGATION FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS[…]

SUPREME COURT SAYS: EMPLOYER’S NON-REMITTANCE OF UNION DUES CONSTITUTES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER

In a recent development in labor jurisprudence, the question of jurisdiction over complaints regarding non-remittance of union dues by employers has been decisively settled. A recent ruling emphasized that such complaints, arising from the failure of employers to remit collected union member dues as stipulated in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), do not fall under the purview of “intra-union disputes.” Instead, they constitute unfair labor practices, specifically interference with employees’ rights to self-organization.

SUPREME COURT SAYS: PLDT WORKERS PERFORMING INSTALLATION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE LINES HOLD REGULAR EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Doctrine of the case:

Labor contracting is not illegal per se. The fact that PLDT had contracted out specific jobs, works, or services does not automatically mean that the contractors’ employees are the direct employees of PLDT. However, PLDT workers engaged in installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines need to be regularized because they perform tasks that are necessary and desirable and directly related to the business of PLDT.