Pinoy Law Student Buddy

  Security of Tenure - Our labor laws and the Constitution afford security of tenure to employees that one may have a reasonable expectation that they are secured in their work and that management prerogative, although unilaterally wielded, will not harm them. Employees are guaranteed that they can only be terminated from service for a just and valid cause and when supported by substantial evidence after due process. Similarly, labor laws and the constitution recognize the right of the employers to regulate, according to his/her own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, layoff of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice. Floating Status; Off Detail - Contrary to the stance of...

  Regular Employees - Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the employee “has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer[.]” Under the definition, the primary standard that determines regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer; the emphasis is on the necessity or desirability of the employee’s activity. Thus, when the employee performs activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer, the law regards the employee as regular. By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code also considers regular a casual employment arrangement when the casual employee’s engagement has lasted for at least one year, regardless of the engagement’s continuity. The controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during which the...

Bernardo Valdevieso vs. Candelario Damalerio, et al.  G.R. No. 133303, February 17, 2005 Facts:  Sometime in 1995, Lorenzo and Elenita Uy sold to petitioner a parcel of land. The property was covered by a TCT in the names of the Uy spouses but the deed of sale to petitioner was not registered. Neither was title to the land transferred to  petitioner immediately but the latter declared the property for taxation purposes.  Sometime in 1996, spouses Damalerio filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of money against the Uy spouses, with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, which the trial court issued, by virtue of which the property sold to petitioner that was still in the names of the Uy  spouses was levied. The levy was recorded in the Registry of Deeds and annotated at the back of the TCT. Later, a new TCT was issued in the name of the petitioner, cancelling the previous TCT. The attachment annotated at the back of the tit...

Ruperta Cano and Jesus Carlo Gerard Vda. De Viray v. Sps. Jose and Amelita Usi G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012 Facts: Lot 733, registered in the name of Mendoza is the subject of this case. Geodetic Engr Fajardo prepared the Fajardo Plan, in which Lot 733 was divided into 6 smaller parcels of differing size dimensions: Lot 733(A-F). Mendoza executed 2 separate deeds of absolute sale, the first, transferring Lot 733-F to Jesus and the second deed conveying Lot 733-A to Sps Viray. Vda. de Viray is the surviving spouse of Jesus. Mendoza, Vda. de Mallari and Sps. Usi, as purported co-owners of Lot 733, executed the 1st Subdivision Agreement (SA) in accordance with Galang Plan. Then they executed the 2nd SA. The subdivision of Lot 733, per the Galang Plan, and the 2 SAs concluded based on that plan, virtually resulted in the loss of the identity of what under the Fajardo Plan were Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F. The Sps. Viray and the late Jesus purchased Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F, respec...

Wilson Go and Peter Go v. Resureccion Bihis G.R. No. 211972, July 22, 2015 Facts: In 1960, Felisa Buenaventura who owns a parcel of land in Quezon City supposedly sold to her daughter Bella and the latter‘s husband Delfin and Felimon Buenaventura the subject property to assist them in obtaining a loan from the GSIS. A new TCT was issued in the name of Bella, Delfin, and Felimon. Sometime in 1970, Felisa wrote a letter to Bella and Delfin reiterating therein the reason why she allowed the transfer of the title in their names. In the same letter, Felisa stated that she wanted that all her properties including the subject land to be divided equally among her heirs. Upon Felisa's death in 1994, the Bihis Family, Felisa's other heirs who have long been occupying the subject property, caused the annotation of their adverse claim over the same on TCT. Subsequently, however, or on January 22, 1997, the said annotation was cancelled, and the next day, the Heirs of Felimon, S...

Security and Exchange Commission v. Hon. Laygo et al. G.R. No. 188639, September 02, 2015 Facts: Pursuant to the mandate of Securities Regulation Code, the SEC issued the New Rules on the Registration and Sale of Pre-Need Plans to govern the pre-need industry prior to the enactment of the Pre-Need Code. It required from the pre-need providers the creation of trust funds as a requirement for registration. Legacy, being a pre-need provider, complied with the trust fund requirement and entered into a trust agreement with Land Bank. In mid-2000, the industry collapsed for a range of reasons. Legacy, like the others, was unable to pay its obligations to the plan holders. This resulted in Legacy being the subject of a petition for involuntary insolvency by private respondents in their capacity as plan holders. Through its manifestation filed in the RTC, Legacy did not object to the proceedings and was declared insolvent by the RTC. The trial court also ordered Legacy to submit an i...

San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. BF Homes, Inc. G.R. No. 169343, [August 5, 2015] Facts: BF homes (BF) and San Miguel Properties Inc. (SMPI) entered three successive Deeds of Absolute Sale whereby the latter sold to the former a total of 130 Italia lots. SMPI completed payments of the 130 lots but only 110 of out of the 130 transfer of certificate of titles were delivered to SMPI. After demand which was unheeded, SMPI filed a complaint for specific performance with damages with the HLURB. In its answer, BF claims that Orendain was not authorized to enter into the Deed of Absolute Sale and that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were not notarized and were undated. Issue: Whether the Deeds of Absolute Sale are unenforceable for failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds Ruling: The Deeds are enforceable. The contracts of sale of the 130 Italia II lots between BF Homes and SMPI were reduced into writing into the three Deeds of Absolute Sale which were signed by the representatives of...