Case Digest

The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) has the authority to determine who should receive the judgment award it granted to a corporation that has already been dissolved.

The act of preventing an employee from reporting to work is considered dismissal, and the lack of just or authorized cause and procedural due process makes it illegal.

The Supreme Court tackled whether an accused extraditee can post bail, balancing personal liberty against international justice. The ruling sets the rules for when temporary release is allowed even before facing trial in another country.

When does illness become a legal ground for dismissal?
An overseas worker was repatriated after experiencing heart problems, but was his termination valid under the law? The Supreme Court weighed in on what counts as a disease serious enough to end employment and the rules employers must follow.

When does police instinct cross the line?
In this case, police officers stopped and searched a man in Tondo after observing what they believed to be “suspicious movements.” The encounter led to the discovery of a firearm—but the bigger legal question was whether the arrest and search were valid from the start.

The Supreme Court ruled that an SPA automatically ends when the principal dies. Any act done after that is void—unless the agent acted in good faith without knowing of the death. Since Jessica knew her father had passed, the mortgage couldn’t bind his estate or her mother.

Disputes involving refund or delivery of condo units fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HSAC (formerly HLURB), pursuant to PD 957 and PD 1344.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a child—born before the parents’ marriage—remains legitimate after that marriage was later declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.

This case draws the line between constructive dismissal and legitimate management prerogative. Even when an employee’s duties are changed or reduced, such movement does not automatically amount to unfair treatment—especially if done in good faith and without diminution of pay or rank.

In this case, the Court clarified that theft isn’t limited to the person who literally discovers lost property. Even those who knowingly keep, divide, or misappropriate what isn’t theirs—despite knowing it was merely found—may still be held liable as a “finder in law.”