Jurisprudence

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.

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.

It is not proper to speak to a student in a manner of anger and dissatisfaction in words, especially in a classroom setting or even within the school grounds, where it is clear that the person was acting in their capacity as a professor.

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.

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.

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.