Case Digest

The Supreme Court discussed that constructive dismissal or constructive discharge exists “‘when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a demotion in rank or diminution in pay.”

An employee repeatedly and continuously hired for the same work under short-term contracts for at least one year is considered a regular employee of the principal.

As a general rule, employees dismissed for just cause are not entitled to separation pay. However, as an exception, it may be granted if the dismissal is not due to serious misconduct and does not reflect on the moral character of the employee.

It held that while fixed-term employment is not per se invalid, it is subject to strict scrutiny, especially where the employee performs activities that are necessary and desirable to the usual business of the employer.

In this case, a company challenged a deficiency VAT assessment, arguing that the BIR failed to consider its explanations and supporting documents, allegedly violating Section 228 of the NIRC and due process standards under jurisprudence. The Supreme Court examined whether missing the 15-day reglementary period to reply to the PAN invalidates the assessment and whether due process was still observed during the administrative and judicial stages.

As recognized under Article 1 of the Family Code, in every marriage lies the vinculum juris – the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law.

A trademark registration in bad faith is considered unfair competition under the Intellectual Property Code:

Adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

For a recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Both must exist since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

A lawyer’s “locked” profile or privacy settings do not shield them from liability. Citing Belo-Henares v. Guevarra, the Supreme Court held that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for Facebook posts because privacy tools are not foolproof, as information shared with “friends” can easily be shared or leaked to others outside the intended circle.