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)

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 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.

In determining the real nature of a contract, the express terms of the written agreement and the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are taken into consideration.

· 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 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.

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)