This document is a summary of a court decision regarding a case of alleged illegal dismissal. The respondent, Ma. Realiza S. Tanguin, was employed as a billing supervisor and was placed on preventive suspension by her employer for allegedly selling jewelry during work hours. She claimed she was forced out of her job, while the employer argued they sent her notices to return to work. Both the labor arbiter and NLRC found she was not illegally dismissed but was entitled to unpaid salary. The Court of Appeals modified this, finding the relationship was strained and awarding her separation pay instead of reinstatement. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether separation pay can be awarded if no dismissal occurred.
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Wage & Hour Case StudiesBest Best and Krieger LLP
This document summarizes three key labor and employment law cases from 2013:
1) Brinker v. Superior Court clarified that employers must provide meal periods but are not required to ensure employees do not work during these periods. Employers must also provide specified rest periods.
2) Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill reaffirmed the holding in Brinker that employers are obligated to provide, not police, meal breaks.
3) Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection ruled that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded for claims involving alleged rest or meal period violations.
This document summarizes several recent WorkCover case reviews from 2015 regarding seeking damages outside the Civil Liability Act, limitation of actions cases, psychiatric injury claims, nursing claims, and various injury types.
Key cases discussed include seeking damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle not considered a workplace; an extension of time granted for a training claim subject to an undertaking; and an extension denied where material facts were known but not of a "decisive character". The document also reviews psychiatric injury, nursing claims and limitations periods for back, limb, and assault injuries.
Philippine Spring Water Resources Inc./ Danilo Y. Lua versus Court of Appeals...PoL Sangalang
Philippine Spring Water Resources Inc./ Danilo Y. Lua versus Court of Appeals and Juvenstein B. Mahilum. GR No. 205278. June 11, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
NLRC Law Report No. VII. July 2013. Published by the National Labor Relations Commission, Research Information and Publication Division. Digest of Labor Cases decided by the Supreme Court.
Dionarto Q. Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., GR No. 207888...PoL Sangalang
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent company, there was no illegal dismissal. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish through clear evidence that he was dismissed from his employment, as he did not prove that he was prevented from returning to work or deprived of assignments. The petitioner also did not show that the individual he claimed informed him of his dismissal was authorized to terminate employees. The Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petitioner's illegal dismissal case.
- Complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents' client which was ruled in complainant's favor by the NLRC. Respondents filed numerous motions and cases to delay execution of the NLRC decision awarding back wages and separation pay to complainant.
- The IBP found that respondents had abused and misused legal processes to unduly delay execution, in violation of their duties as lawyers.
- The Supreme Court suspended respondents from practice for 1 year, finding they made a mockery of the judicial system and demonstrated a lack of respect for the courts and legal processes.
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Wage & Hour Case StudiesBest Best and Krieger LLP
This document summarizes three key labor and employment law cases from 2013:
1) Brinker v. Superior Court clarified that employers must provide meal periods but are not required to ensure employees do not work during these periods. Employers must also provide specified rest periods.
2) Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill reaffirmed the holding in Brinker that employers are obligated to provide, not police, meal breaks.
3) Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection ruled that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded for claims involving alleged rest or meal period violations.
This document summarizes several recent WorkCover case reviews from 2015 regarding seeking damages outside the Civil Liability Act, limitation of actions cases, psychiatric injury claims, nursing claims, and various injury types.
Key cases discussed include seeking damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle not considered a workplace; an extension of time granted for a training claim subject to an undertaking; and an extension denied where material facts were known but not of a "decisive character". The document also reviews psychiatric injury, nursing claims and limitations periods for back, limb, and assault injuries.
Philippine Spring Water Resources Inc./ Danilo Y. Lua versus Court of Appeals...PoL Sangalang
Philippine Spring Water Resources Inc./ Danilo Y. Lua versus Court of Appeals and Juvenstein B. Mahilum. GR No. 205278. June 11, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
NLRC Law Report No. VII. July 2013. Published by the National Labor Relations Commission, Research Information and Publication Division. Digest of Labor Cases decided by the Supreme Court.
Dionarto Q. Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., GR No. 207888...PoL Sangalang
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent company, there was no illegal dismissal. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish through clear evidence that he was dismissed from his employment, as he did not prove that he was prevented from returning to work or deprived of assignments. The petitioner also did not show that the individual he claimed informed him of his dismissal was authorized to terminate employees. The Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petitioner's illegal dismissal case.
- Complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents' client which was ruled in complainant's favor by the NLRC. Respondents filed numerous motions and cases to delay execution of the NLRC decision awarding back wages and separation pay to complainant.
- The IBP found that respondents had abused and misused legal processes to unduly delay execution, in violation of their duties as lawyers.
- The Supreme Court suspended respondents from practice for 1 year, finding they made a mockery of the judicial system and demonstrated a lack of respect for the courts and legal processes.
1) A former employee filed a complaint with the NLRC against a mining corporation and its president for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and benefits.
2) The labor arbiter and NLRC found for the employee and ordered the corporation and its president to pay the monetary claims.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal but modified the decision by removing the personal liability of the corporation president, finding no evidence he acted in bad faith.
This document summarizes two consolidated labor cases regarding the termination of three teachers from their positions at Balayan Colleges. The teachers were initially placed on preventive suspension and later terminated. The labor arbiter ruled the dismissals were illegal and unjustified. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed but removed damages awards. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed one petition and granted another in part, upholding the illegal dismissal ruling but modifying damages.
1.jarcia machine shop and auto supply, inc. vs. nlrc, g.r. no. 118045, januar...Bon Janry Patacsil
Tolentino was initially suspended from work for a month by Jarcia Machine Shop for an unauthorized absence. When he tried to reason with his employer, his employment was terminated. Jarcia then told Tolentino he was being transferred to a construction job, which he refused as it was unrelated to his current role. Tolentino filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The labor arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Tolentino's favor, finding his dismissal to be illegal as he was not given a chance to refute the transfer. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
This document summarizes a legal case involving a Filipino seaman, Ramon Alpino, who filed multiple claims against his former employer, Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc., seeking disability and sickness benefits. The case discusses the history of Alpino's various claims filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and courts. It also summarizes the labor arbiter's decision granting Alpino's claim and ordering payment, as well as Stolt-Nielsen's appeal arguing the claim was barred by prescription, res judicata, and prior legal rulings on the validity of documents related to the case. The Court of Appeals and NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision based on Stolt-Nielsen
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals. [1] Two employees, Madeline Montecillo and Liza Trinidad, filed complaints against their employer Niña Jewelry Manufacturing for illegal dismissal after the company required cash deposits or salary deductions as a condition of continued employment. [2] The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, finding the employees abandoned their work, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the deposit/deduction requirement amounted to constructive dismissal. [3] Niña Jewelry petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts and ordering reinstatement and backpay without factual
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is reviewing a case where Danica Medina was convicted of estafa for failing to remit payments she collected from teachers on behalf of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). While lower courts found her guilty, the Supreme Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of either estafa or qualified theft. As such, the Court rules that Medina must be acquitted.
Every person with disability, as a member of the society, shall be entitled opportunities to participate in social, economic, cultural and all other activities in the society. No one shall be allowed to discriminate against persons with disabilities or violate their rights and benefits on the basis of disability.
Report no. 9 (just causes for termination)edmar cornejo
This document discusses just causes for termination of employment under Philippine labor law. It defines just causes as lawful grounds for dismissal directly attributable to the employee's fault or negligence. Some just causes discussed include serious misconduct, willful disobedience of lawful orders, neglect of duties, dishonesty resulting in loss of trust/confidence, and commission of a crime. The document also provides examples of court cases related to each just cause. It concludes with a summary of a Supreme Court case related to an employee's claim for retirement benefits upon separation from employment.
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 201.docxpaynetawnya
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute “constructive dismissal”
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter’s contract, Mr. Potter commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr. Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr. Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, “[i]n light of the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the Commission’s concealed intention to have Mr. Potter terminated.”
2. Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Company, 2015 ABQB 621
Employers owe a duty of good faith when determining Long-Term Incentive Plan entitlements post-termination
After approximately three years of employment, Mr. Styles was terminated on a without cause basis. Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Styles was paid three months of salary.
However, during the course of his employment, Mr. Styles became eligible to participate in (and did participate in) the Defendant’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Upon termination, Mr. Styles was advised that “[a]s per policy, no further payment on Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) or Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) will be made).”
Despite the fact that the LTIP plan required Mr. Styles to be “actively employed” on the date that the monies were paid, Mr. Styles sued his former employer, citing, among other things, the fact that he had been dismissed shortly before the payout date.
Deciding in favour of Mr. Styles, the Court ordered an LTIP payout in the amount of $444,205 as a part of Mr. Styles’ severance on the basis that the employer’s strict reliance on the wording of the LTIP provision would violate the duty of good faith contractual performance that it owed to Mr. Styles (as recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2014 Bhasin v. Hrynew decision). In particular, the court held that “[w]hen an employment contract includes a condition for the receipt by an employee of a benefit under the contract and the employer has the discretion, pursuant to the terms of the contract, to frustrate the satisfaction of that condition, it becomes even more important for that discretion to be exercised fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily.”
When is the exercise of "discretion" required to be reasonable?3. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods, 2015 HRTO 675
New high-water mark in general damages award for human rights violations
The Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T. were temporary foreign workers who had been employed by Presteve Foods for approximately nine ...
Atty. De Silva issued a check to the complainant to settle a civil case against her client, but the check was returned unpaid because the account was closed. The complainant filed an administrative complaint against Atty. De Silva for deceiving him. The Supreme Court found Atty. De Silva guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath as a lawyer. She was suspended from practicing law for two years because issuing a bounced check constituted deceit and violated her duties as a lawyer under the Rules of Court.
Atty. De Silva issued a check to the complainant to settle a civil case against her client, but the check was returned unpaid because the account was closed. The complainant filed an administrative complaint against Atty. De Silva for deceiving him. The Supreme Court found Atty. De Silva guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath as a lawyer. She was suspended from practicing law for two years because issuing a bounced check constituted deceit and violated her duties as an attorney to maintain good moral character.
The document discusses several cases related to a lawyer withdrawing services from a client. It summarizes the Orcino vs Gaspar case, where the court ruled that a lawyer may only withdraw services for specific good causes outlined in the rules. It also summarizes Arambulo vs CA, where the court found that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing an appeal due to non-payment of fees, as the notice was sent to a lawyer who had withdrawn from the case. The document provides guidance on the circumstances under which a lawyer may withdraw from a case.
This document summarizes a court case in India regarding a winding up petition. M/s. Narsey Brothers supplied cotton bales to M/s. Nithyalakshmi Textiles Mills but was not fully paid. Narsey Brothers filed a winding up petition, which was dismissed by a single judge. Narsey Brothers appealed. The key issues were whether the quality of cotton was as agreed and whether a rebate amount was owed. The court upheld the single judge's decision, finding the winding up petition was an attempt to pressure for payment rather than a legitimate claim, so it was dismissed without costs.
POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.docxJOHNFLORENTINOMARIAN
The Supreme Court acquitted Potenciana Evangelista of charges relating to approving a tax credit for Tanduay Distillery. While an earlier decision had convicted Evangelista of gross negligence, the Court found she did not unfairly harm the government or grant unwarranted benefits. As a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, Evangelista was expected to understand tax numeric codes, and her certification did not explicitly recommend approving the tax credit. The Court determined Evangelista's actions did not meet the definition of corrupt practices under the law.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
1) A former employee filed a complaint with the NLRC against a mining corporation and its president for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and benefits.
2) The labor arbiter and NLRC found for the employee and ordered the corporation and its president to pay the monetary claims.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal but modified the decision by removing the personal liability of the corporation president, finding no evidence he acted in bad faith.
This document summarizes two consolidated labor cases regarding the termination of three teachers from their positions at Balayan Colleges. The teachers were initially placed on preventive suspension and later terminated. The labor arbiter ruled the dismissals were illegal and unjustified. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed but removed damages awards. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed one petition and granted another in part, upholding the illegal dismissal ruling but modifying damages.
1.jarcia machine shop and auto supply, inc. vs. nlrc, g.r. no. 118045, januar...Bon Janry Patacsil
Tolentino was initially suspended from work for a month by Jarcia Machine Shop for an unauthorized absence. When he tried to reason with his employer, his employment was terminated. Jarcia then told Tolentino he was being transferred to a construction job, which he refused as it was unrelated to his current role. Tolentino filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The labor arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Tolentino's favor, finding his dismissal to be illegal as he was not given a chance to refute the transfer. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
This document summarizes a legal case involving a Filipino seaman, Ramon Alpino, who filed multiple claims against his former employer, Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc., seeking disability and sickness benefits. The case discusses the history of Alpino's various claims filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and courts. It also summarizes the labor arbiter's decision granting Alpino's claim and ordering payment, as well as Stolt-Nielsen's appeal arguing the claim was barred by prescription, res judicata, and prior legal rulings on the validity of documents related to the case. The Court of Appeals and NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision based on Stolt-Nielsen
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals. [1] Two employees, Madeline Montecillo and Liza Trinidad, filed complaints against their employer Niña Jewelry Manufacturing for illegal dismissal after the company required cash deposits or salary deductions as a condition of continued employment. [2] The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, finding the employees abandoned their work, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the deposit/deduction requirement amounted to constructive dismissal. [3] Niña Jewelry petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts and ordering reinstatement and backpay without factual
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is reviewing a case where Danica Medina was convicted of estafa for failing to remit payments she collected from teachers on behalf of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). While lower courts found her guilty, the Supreme Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of either estafa or qualified theft. As such, the Court rules that Medina must be acquitted.
Every person with disability, as a member of the society, shall be entitled opportunities to participate in social, economic, cultural and all other activities in the society. No one shall be allowed to discriminate against persons with disabilities or violate their rights and benefits on the basis of disability.
Report no. 9 (just causes for termination)edmar cornejo
This document discusses just causes for termination of employment under Philippine labor law. It defines just causes as lawful grounds for dismissal directly attributable to the employee's fault or negligence. Some just causes discussed include serious misconduct, willful disobedience of lawful orders, neglect of duties, dishonesty resulting in loss of trust/confidence, and commission of a crime. The document also provides examples of court cases related to each just cause. It concludes with a summary of a Supreme Court case related to an employee's claim for retirement benefits upon separation from employment.
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 201.docxpaynetawnya
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute “constructive dismissal”
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter’s contract, Mr. Potter commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr. Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr. Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, “[i]n light of the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the Commission’s concealed intention to have Mr. Potter terminated.”
2. Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Company, 2015 ABQB 621
Employers owe a duty of good faith when determining Long-Term Incentive Plan entitlements post-termination
After approximately three years of employment, Mr. Styles was terminated on a without cause basis. Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Styles was paid three months of salary.
However, during the course of his employment, Mr. Styles became eligible to participate in (and did participate in) the Defendant’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Upon termination, Mr. Styles was advised that “[a]s per policy, no further payment on Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) or Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) will be made).”
Despite the fact that the LTIP plan required Mr. Styles to be “actively employed” on the date that the monies were paid, Mr. Styles sued his former employer, citing, among other things, the fact that he had been dismissed shortly before the payout date.
Deciding in favour of Mr. Styles, the Court ordered an LTIP payout in the amount of $444,205 as a part of Mr. Styles’ severance on the basis that the employer’s strict reliance on the wording of the LTIP provision would violate the duty of good faith contractual performance that it owed to Mr. Styles (as recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2014 Bhasin v. Hrynew decision). In particular, the court held that “[w]hen an employment contract includes a condition for the receipt by an employee of a benefit under the contract and the employer has the discretion, pursuant to the terms of the contract, to frustrate the satisfaction of that condition, it becomes even more important for that discretion to be exercised fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily.”
When is the exercise of "discretion" required to be reasonable?3. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods, 2015 HRTO 675
New high-water mark in general damages award for human rights violations
The Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T. were temporary foreign workers who had been employed by Presteve Foods for approximately nine ...
Atty. De Silva issued a check to the complainant to settle a civil case against her client, but the check was returned unpaid because the account was closed. The complainant filed an administrative complaint against Atty. De Silva for deceiving him. The Supreme Court found Atty. De Silva guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath as a lawyer. She was suspended from practicing law for two years because issuing a bounced check constituted deceit and violated her duties as a lawyer under the Rules of Court.
Atty. De Silva issued a check to the complainant to settle a civil case against her client, but the check was returned unpaid because the account was closed. The complainant filed an administrative complaint against Atty. De Silva for deceiving him. The Supreme Court found Atty. De Silva guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath as a lawyer. She was suspended from practicing law for two years because issuing a bounced check constituted deceit and violated her duties as an attorney to maintain good moral character.
The document discusses several cases related to a lawyer withdrawing services from a client. It summarizes the Orcino vs Gaspar case, where the court ruled that a lawyer may only withdraw services for specific good causes outlined in the rules. It also summarizes Arambulo vs CA, where the court found that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing an appeal due to non-payment of fees, as the notice was sent to a lawyer who had withdrawn from the case. The document provides guidance on the circumstances under which a lawyer may withdraw from a case.
This document summarizes a court case in India regarding a winding up petition. M/s. Narsey Brothers supplied cotton bales to M/s. Nithyalakshmi Textiles Mills but was not fully paid. Narsey Brothers filed a winding up petition, which was dismissed by a single judge. Narsey Brothers appealed. The key issues were whether the quality of cotton was as agreed and whether a rebate amount was owed. The court upheld the single judge's decision, finding the winding up petition was an attempt to pressure for payment rather than a legitimate claim, so it was dismissed without costs.
POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.docxJOHNFLORENTINOMARIAN
The Supreme Court acquitted Potenciana Evangelista of charges relating to approving a tax credit for Tanduay Distillery. While an earlier decision had convicted Evangelista of gross negligence, the Court found she did not unfairly harm the government or grant unwarranted benefits. As a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, Evangelista was expected to understand tax numeric codes, and her certification did not explicitly recommend approving the tax credit. The Court determined Evangelista's actions did not meet the definition of corrupt practices under the law.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
Claudias kitchen vs tanguin
1. G.R. No. 221096
CLAUDIA'S KITCHEN, INC. and ENZO SQUILLANTINI, Petitioners
vs.
MA. REALIZA S. TANGUIN, Respondent
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to modify the April 15, 2015 Decision1
and October
13, 2015 Resolution2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130332, which modified the
November 29, 2012 Decision3
and April 4, 2013 Resolution4
of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CN. 01-01520-11/ NLRC LAC No. 02-000693-12, a case for
illegal dismissal.
The Antecedents
Respondent Ma. Realiza S. Tanguin (Tanguin) was employed by petitioner Claudia's Kitchen,
Inc. (Claudia's Kitchen) on June 20, 2001. She performed her functions as a billing supervisor in
Manila Jockey Club's Turf
Club Building in San Lazaro Leisure and Business Park (SLLBP), Carmona, Cavite. Her duties and
responsibilities involved 1) Sorting and preparing suppliers' billing statements; 2) Releasing check
payments to the suppliers after being approved and signed by the management; 3) Giving job
assignment to employees; 4) Training and conducting orientation of new employees and monitoring
their progress; 5) Encoding daily and monthly menu production; 6) Preparing and submitting weekly
and monthly inventory and sales reports to the head office; 7) Handling petty cash funds and
depositing daily and weekly collections; and 8) Programming cash register.
Tanguin averred that on October 26, 2010, she was placed on preventive suspension by Marivic
Lucasan (Lucas an), Human Resources Manager, for allegedly forcing her co-employees to buy
silver jewelry from her during office hours and inside the company premises. On the same date, she
was directed by Lucasan to submit her written explanation on the matter. Tanguin admitted that she
was selling silver jewelry, but she denied that she did so during office hours. On October 30, 2010,
she was barred by a security guard from entering the company premises. She was informed by her
co-employees, namely Khena Nama, Jordan Lopez and Rose Marie Esquejo that they were forced
to write letters against her, or else they would be terminated from their work.
For their part, Claudia's Kitchen and Enzo Squillantini, its President, (petitioners) countered that in
October 2010, they received reports fromsome employees that Tanguin was allegedly forcing some
of them to buy silver jewelry from her during office hours and inside the company premises, which
the latter admitted. In order to conduct a thorough investigation, she was placed under preventive
suspension on October 26, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the petitioners sent Tanguin a letter
requiring her to submit a written explanation as to why she should not be charged for conducting
business within the company premises and during office hours. During her suspension, the
petitioners discovered her habitual tardiness and gross negligence in the computation of the total
number of hours worked by her co-employees. Subsequently, they sent letters to her, to wit:
1. First Notice - sent on November 17, 2010 requiring Tanguin to report to the Head Office on
November 19, 2010 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning to explain her alleged infractions; 5
2. 2. Second Notice - sent on November 24, 2010 requiring Tanguin to explain the charges against
her;6
3. Third Notice - sent on November 25, 2010 requiring Tanguin to report to the Head Office and to
explain the charges against her; 7
4. Letter- sent on December 1, 2010 reminding Tanguin thatshe was still an employee of
Claudia's Kitchen anddirecting her to report back to work;8
and
5. Final Letter - sent on December 2, 2010 requiring Tanguin to report for work on December 3,
2010 at 10:00 a.m.9
Tanguin, however, failed to act on these notices.
The LA Ruling
In a Decision, 10
dated December 22, 2011, the LA ruled that Tanguin' s preventive suspension was
justified because, as supervisor, she was in possession of the company's cash fund and collections.
It stressed that she was not illegally dismissed. Nevertheless, the LA ordered the petitioners to pay
Tanguin her unpaid salary. The falloreads:
WHEREFORE, a Decision is hereby rendered declaring that Complainant was not illegally
DISMISSED. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay Complainant her salary from October 10 to
25, 2010 as follows:
UNPAID SALARY
10/10- 25/10 - 15 days
P13,600/26x15 = P7,846.15
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 11
Unsatisfied, Tanguin elevated an appeal the before NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling
In its November 29, 2012 Decision, the NLRC partly granted Tanguin's appeal. It opined that there
was no scintilla of proof that she was dismissed from service. It pointed out that it was she who
chose not to report for work despite receipt of notices requiring her to report to the head office.
It stated that the nature of her position as billing supervisor, whereby she held company funds and
gave job assignments to the employees, was sufficient basis for the preventive suspension.
The NLRC, however, found that Tanguin did not abandon her work when she failed to report for
work despite notice. It stated that the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal negated the claim of
abandonment. The NLRC concluded that there was neither dismissal nor abandonment. Thus, she
should be reinstated to her former position, but without backwages. The dispositive portion reads:
3. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The decision dated
December22, 2011insofar as the money award is concerned is affirmed in toto. However, appellees
are directed to reinstate appellant to her former position or to a similar equivalent position without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges sans backwages.
SO ORDERED. 12
Unconvinced, the petitioners filed a partial motion for reconsideration thereto. In its April 4, 2013
Resolution, the NLRC denied the same.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, dated April 15, 2015, the CA modified the NLRC ruling. It wrote that
reinstatement was not proper because such remedy was applicable only to illegally dismissed
employees. It added that the petitioners did not dismiss her from employment as evidenced by
several notices sent to her requiring her to report back to work and to explain the charges against
her.
The CA, however, applied the doctrine of strained relations and ordered the payment of separation
pay to Tanguin instead of compelling the petitioners to accept her in their employ. It opined that she
was employed as a billing supervisor and such a sensitive position required no less than the trust
and confidence of her employer as she was routinely charged with the care and custody of the funds
and property of her employer; and that as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy, an
atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect her efficiency and
productivity if she would be reinstated. Hence, the CA disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision
of the NLRC dated November 29, 2012 and the April 4, 2013 Resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) NLRC NCR CN. 01-01520-11/ NLRC LAC No. are hereby MODIFIED
as follows:
1. Private respondent Ma. Realiza S. Tanguin is not entitled to reinstatement in view of the strained
relationship between her and the petitioners;
2. In view of the petitioners' assertion of the doctrine of strained relations, they are in effect
dismissing private respondent Tanguin on the ground of loss of confidence; and
3. As a measure of social justice, We award separation pay in favor of private respondent Ma.
Realiza S. Tanguin.
Accordingly, let this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the proper
separation pay of private respondent Tanguin within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED. 13
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the CA in the assailed
October 13, 2015 Resolution.
ISSUE
4. WHETHER SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT MAY BE AWARDED TO AN
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NOT DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT.
The petitioners argued that the CA erred in awarding separation pay in the absence of any
authorized cause for termination of employment; and that its conclusion that it sought to terminate
respondent due to loss of confidence was refuted by the evidence on record.
In her Comment, 14
dated April 25, 2016, Tanguin averred that the petitioners sent her notices to
return to work only after she had filed an illegal dismissal complaint against them before the Labor
Arbiter; that on October 27, 2010, she was barred from entering her workplace by Martin Martinez,
the Cost Comptroller; and that the charges of negligence in computing the number of hours worked
by her co-employees and habitual tardiness were merely concocted.
In their Reply, 15
dated January 4, 2017, the petitioners contended that separation pay could not be
awarded on the ground of social justice when the dismissal was based on the just causes under
Article 282 of the Labor Code; and that to grant separation pay in her favor would unjustly reward
her for her infractions.
The Court's Ruling
Respondent was not dismissed from employment
In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the termination
was for a valid or authorized cause. 16
But before the employer must bear the burden of proving that
the dismissal was legal, the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that indeed they
were dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality
thereof. 17
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,18
the Court enunciated:
The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened
to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be
stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the
employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the
respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners. 19
Tanguin miserably failed to discharge this burden. She simply alleged that a security guard barred
her from entering her workplace. Yet, she offered no evidence to prove the same. Absent any
evidence that she was prevented from entering her workplace, what remained was her bare
allegation, which could not certainly be considered substantial evidence. At any rate, granting that
she was barred, there was a lawful basis therefor as she had been placed under preventive
suspension pending investigation.
On the other hand, the petitioners were able to prove that they did not dismiss Tanguin from
employment because she was still under investigation as evidenced by several notices20
requiring
her to report to work and submit an explanation as to the charges hurled against her. In fact, in its
December 1, 2010 letter, they reminded her that she was still an employee of Claudia's Kitchen.
Instead of answering the allegations against her, she opted to file an illegal dismissal complaint with
the Labor Arbiter. Clearly, her complaint for illegal dismissal was premature, if not pre-emptive.
There wasno abandonment on the part of respondent
5. The Court further agrees with the findings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA that Tanguin was not
guilty of abandonment. Tan Brothers CorporationofBasilan City v. Escudero21
extensively discussed
abandonment in laborcases:
As defined under established jurisprudence, abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of
an employee to resume his employment. It constitutes neglect of duty and is a just cause for
termination of employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 [now Article 296] of the Labor Code.
To constitute abandonment, however, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue
one's employment without any intention of returning. In this regard, two elements must concur: (1)
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor
and being manifested by some overt acts. Otherwise stated,' absence must be accompanied by
overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. It
has been ruled that the employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal
of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.22
[Emphasis supplied]
In this case, records are bereft of any indication that Tanguin's failure to report for work was with a
clear intent to sever her employment relationship with the petitioners. Mere absence or failure to
report for work, even after a notice to return to work has been served, is not enough to amount to an
abandonment of employment. 23
Moreover, Tanguin's act of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement
negates any intention to abandon her employment. 24
On the theory that the same is proof enough of
the desire to return to work, the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it
includes a prayer for reinstatement, has been held to be totally inconsistent with a charge of
abandonment.25
To reiterate, abandonment of position is a matter of intention and cannot be lightly
inferred, much less legally presumed, from certain equivocal acts. 26
The grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement hasno legal basis
Separationis pay warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee's fault,
such as those provided in Articles 29827
and 29928
of the Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal
dismissal where reinstatement is no longer feasible. 29
On the other hand, an employee dismissed for
any of the just causes enumerated under Article 29730
of the same Code, being causes attributable to
the employee's fault, is not, as a general rule, entitled to separation pay. The non-grant of such right
to separation is pay premised on the reason that an erring employee should not benefit from their
wrongful acts. 31
Under Section 7,32
Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code, such dismissed employee is nonetheless entitled to whatever rights, benefits, and privileges
he may have under the applicable individual or collective agreement with the employer or voluntary
employer policy or practice.
As an exception, case law allows the grant of separation pay or financial assistance to a legally-
dismissed employee as a measure of social justice or on grounds of equity. In Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC (PLDT), 33
the Court allowed the grant when the employee
wasvalidly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
character.The payment of separation pay and reinstatement are exclusive remedies.34
The payment
of separation pay replaces the legal consequences of reinstatement to an employee who was
illegally dismissed.35
To award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to an employee who was never
dismissed by his employer would only give imprimatur to the unacceptable act of an employee who
is facing charges related to his employment, but instead of addressing the complaint against him, he
opted to file an illegal dismissal case against his employer.
6. In sum, separation pay is only awarded to a dismissed employee in the following instances: 1) in
case of closure of establishment under Article 298 [formerly Article 283] of the Labor Code; 2) in
case of termination due to disease or sickness under Article 299 [formerly Article 284] of the Labor
Code; 3) as a measure of social justice in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed
for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character;36
4) where the
dismissed employee's position is no longer available;37
5) when the continued relationship between
the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to the strained relations between them;38
or
6) when the dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation benefits
would be for the best interest of the parties involved. 39
In all of these cases, the grant of separation
pay presupposes that the employee to whom it was given was dismissed from employment, whether
legally or illegally. In fine, as a general rule, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement could not be
awarded to an employee whose employment was not terminated by his employer.
In Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe v. Raneses, 40
the Court wrote that in "a case where the employee was
neither found to have been dismissed nor to have abandoned his/her work, the general course of
action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the employee to return to work, and
order the employer to accept the employee."
There were cases, however, wherein the Court awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to
the employee even after a finding that there was neither dismissal nor abandonment. In Nightowl
Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan (Nightowl)41
the Court awarded separation pay in
view of the findings of the NLRC that respondent stopped reporting for work for more than ten (10)
years and never returned, based on the documentary evidence of petitioner.
The circumstances in this case, however, does not warrant an application of the exception. Thus, the
general rule that no separation pay may be awarded to an employee who was not dismissed obtains
in this case. In this regard, it is only proper for Tanguin to report back to work and for the petitioners
to accept her, without prejudice to the on-going investigation against her.
No strained relations between the parties
Finally, the doctrine of strained relations, upon which the CA relied on to support its pay award of
separation to Tanguin, has also no application in this case.1âwphi1
Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable
alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one hand,
such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On
the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its
employ a worker it could no longer trust.42
Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. 43
The doctrine of strained relations should not be
used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone.44
The CA, in declaring that the relations of the parties are so strained such that reinstatement is no
longer feasible, merely stated that it would not be equitable for the petitioners to be ordered to
maintain Tanguin in their employ for it may only inspire vindictiveness on the part of the latter and
that the filing of the illegal dismissal case created an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism
between the parties.45
That Tanguin would be spiteful towards the petitioners, however, is a mere presumption without any
factual basis. Further, the filing of an illegal dismissal case alone is not sufficient reason to engender
a conclusion that the relationship between employer and employee is already strained. The doctrine
7. on strained relations cannot be applied indiscriminately since every labor dispute almost invariably
results in strained relations; otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some
hostility is engendered between the parties as a result of their disagreement.46
Finally, it must be
noted that Tanguin herself is asking for her reinstatement, the same being one of the reliefs she
prayed for in her Appeal47
before the NLRC and even in her Comment48
to the petition for review filed
by the petitioners.
To recapitulate, there was neither dismissal nor abandonment. At the time Tanguin initiated the
illegal dismissal case, the complaint had no basis. The status quo ante was that she was being
asked to explain the accusation against her. Instead of complying, she opted to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal. It was premature, if not pre-emptive, which the Court cannot tolerate or
accommodate. At this time, her plea for reinstatement, backwages and/or separation pay cannot be
granted. Respondent should return to work and answer the complaints against her and the
petitioners should accept her, without prejudice to the result of the investigation against her.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Respondent Ma. RealizaS. Tanguin is hereby ordered
to RETURN TO WORK within fifteen days from the receipt of this decision. Petitioners Claudia's
Kitchen, Inc. and Enzo Squillantini are likewise ordered to ACCEPT respondent Ma. Realiza S.
Tanguin, without prejudice to the result of the investigation against her.
SO ORDERED.