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

contact

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

The Supreme Court decides: Demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign shall constitute constructive dismissal.

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.

The Supreme Court decides: Illegally dismissed probationary employees, like regular employees are entitled to backwages not only until the expired portion of their probationary period but covering the time from when compensation was withheld up to reinstatement.

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.

The Supreme Court decides: When there are conflicting medical findings between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice, the seafarer shall subsequently request for a referral to a third doctor.

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.

The Supreme Court decides: Statements against public officers do not constitute defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties

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.

The Supreme Court decides: In any criminal proceeding involving child abuse, evidence offered to prove the victim’s past sexual acts or sexual predisposition is not admissible.

In the case People of the People of the Philippines vs. Adrian Adrales y Jurado a.k.a. “Alicia Bakla”, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (RECW), evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior, or offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court decides: A trademark registered in bad faith is considered as unfair competition under the IP Code.

The Supreme Court held that a trademark registered in bad faith is considered as unfair competition under the IP Code. Fraud and bad faith, in terms of trademark, go hand-in-hand. There is no distinction between these concepts since one necessarily presupposes the existence of the other. Under Section 151 of the IP Code, a certificate of registration may be canceled if, among others, it was fraudulently made.

The Supreme Court decides: Bulanon failed to provide substantial evidence to prove an employer-employee relationship with Eric and his associated companies. Consequently, Bulanon’s claims of illegal dismissal could not be sustained.

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 Supreme Court decides: The Supreme Court denied Home Cable’s petition, affirming that the infringement was correctly identified and that Filscap’s role and claims were valid.

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.