Jurisprudence

While the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.

Employers may be held solidarily liable for workplace sexual harassment if they fail to act on complaints with urgency and due diligence.

The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is clear that “the time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered working time…if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest.”

Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who has been engaged to perform tasks usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade – without falling within the category of either a fixed, project, or seasonal employee; or one who has rendered at least a year of service, with respect to the activity he or she is engaged, and the work of the employee remains while such activity exists.

Loss or breach of trust and confidence, as a just cause for dismissal by an employer, is based on Article 297 of the Labor Code.

The Supreme Court held that an employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment the parties come to agree upon its terms and conditions, and thereafter, concur in the essential elements thereof.

As a rule, when the crime is punished by a special law, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender intended to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The act prohibited by the law is not the mere possession of a firearm, but the possession of one unlawfully, i.e., without a license or a permit sanctioned by law.

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.

To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct.

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.