Case Digest

In this case, an individual was arrested, detained for two years for non-bailable offenses, and later acquitted after the prosecution failed to identify him. Following his release, he filed a claim for state compensation under R.A. No. 7309, arguing that he was mistakenly identified and unjustly accused. However, the Court strictly applied the verba legis rule, clarifying that the essential element of a prior conviction was lacking.

Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence that consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.

An employee’s omission of past employment in a job application does not automatically constitute just cause for dismissal, particularly when the omission does not involve an overt act of dishonesty.

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: