Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm

Case Digest

helper laundry

Does the Court differentiate between a house helper and a regular employee in rendering appropriate relief? | G.R. No. 94951

The Court finds no merit in making any such distinction. The mere fact that the house helper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staff houses for its guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended.

Does the Court differentiate between a house helper and a regular employee in rendering appropriate relief? | G.R. No. 94951 Read More »

fake false identity

How does the use of a fake name and false identity lead to criminal liability? | G.R. No. 263676

A person cannot falsely represent themselves as a lawyer or use a fictitious name to deceive others, as this constitutes a violation of the law. Even if the individual claims to be mistaken or provides an alibi, the act of using an alias to impersonate a professional is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

How does the use of a fake name and false identity lead to criminal liability? | G.R. No. 263676 Read More »

Can Failure to Follow the Third-Doctor Referral Bar Disability Claims? | G.R. No. 230502

Referral to a third doctor is mandatory in case of disagreements between the findings of the company-designated physician and the employee’s physician of choice. Jurisprudence further holds that upon notification by the seafarer of his intention to refer the conflicting findings to a third doctor, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for referral to a third doctor, commonly agreed upon between the parties.

Can Failure to Follow the Third-Doctor Referral Bar Disability Claims? | G.R. No. 230502 Read More »

When does the 120-day period for a taxpayer’s judicial claim for VAT refund begin to run? | G.R. No. 246379

The law categorically provides that the 120-day period for the CIR to decide the administrative claim for VAT refund runs from the date the taxpayer submits “complete documents” in support of its application for refund. The Supreme Court discussed the history of the relevant laws and concluded that it is the taxpayer who ultimately determines when complete documents have been submitted to commence and continue the running of the 120-day period.

When does the 120-day period for a taxpayer’s judicial claim for VAT refund begin to run? | G.R. No. 246379 Read More »

banana plant supervisor negligence

Can a supervising authority be held liable for a student’s negligence during a school activity? | G.R. No. 219686

As a supervising authority, one is expected to take the necessary precautions to ensure not just the safety of the participants but likewise third persons in the immediate vicinity who may be affected, and to take due care in supervising and instructing those participating in the activity in the execution of their tasks, especially for minor participants.

Can a supervising authority be held liable for a student’s negligence during a school activity? | G.R. No. 219686 Read More »

employee dismissal

Is employee dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence always justified? | G.R. No. 209085

To us, dismissal should only be a last resort, a penalty to be meted out only after all the relevant circumstances have been appreciated and evaluated to ensure that the ground for dismissal was not only serious but true. The cause of termination, to be lawful, must be a serious and grave malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood.

Is employee dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence always justified? | G.R. No. 209085 Read More »

Can a candidate be declared a nuisance for lacking campaign funds?  | G.R. No. 258449

A nuisance candidate is one whose candidacy was lodged merely to create confusion or whose candidacy mocks or causes disrepute to the election process, hence, there is patently no intention to run for office. A candidate without the machinery of a political party or the finances to mount the nationwide campaign “cannot be lumped together with another candidate who was found to have mocked or caused disrepute to the election process.

Can a candidate be declared a nuisance for lacking campaign funds?  | G.R. No. 258449 Read More »

https://157.245.54.109/ https://128.199.163.73/ https://cadizguru.com/ https://167.71.213.43/
Scroll to Top