Lex Fori Philippines

Law, lawyering and everything in between.

  • Pages

  • Subscribe

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 104 other followers

  • DISCLAIMER

    Any opinion, information or remark made on this site, including any response to queries or comments posted, should not be regarded as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. There is no warranty as to the completeness or accuracy of the information and the authors will not be liable for any loss or damage relating to the use or reliance thereon. A grain of salt is recommended. No recipient of any information or content from this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of such information or content. Consult your favorite legal representative. Use of this website does not and will not create any legal relationship between the authors and the receiver/user/reader and any lawyer-client privilege will not apply.

Archive for the ‘Cases’ Category

Separation Pay in lieu of Reinstatement

Posted by lexforiphilippines on July 12, 2010

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement.  The two reliefs are separate and distinct.  When reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.  The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.  In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.  Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact and must be supported by substantial evidence showing that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy. So said the Supreme Court in the case of Golden Ace Builders and Arnold Azul vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200; 5 May 2010.

(For a digest of the case of Golden Ace Builders and Arnold Azul vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200; 5 May 2010, click on Digested Cases under Tools.)

Posted in Cases, Labor Law | Leave a Comment »

Venue for Libel Cases on the Internet

Posted by lexforiphilippines on July 5, 2010

Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is either (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.  If the private complainant opts for the second, the Information (formal indictment) must specifically state where the libelous article was printed and first published.  Previously, the case could be filed where the article was published or circulated, regardless of where it was written or printed.  The purpose of the amendment was to prevent indiscriminate filing of libel cases in far-flung areas in order to harass or intimidate the accused.

If the libelous article appears on a website, there is no way of finding out the location of its printing and first publication.  It is not enough for the complainant to lay the venue where the article was accessed, as this will open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the website is also accessed or capable of being accessed, and spawn the very ills the amendment sought to prevent.  At any rate, the private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place of residence, which will not necessitate finding out exactly where the libelous matter was printed and first published. So said the Supreme Court in the case of Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 129 (G.R. 184800; 5 May 2010).

Click on Tools for a Digest of the case of Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 129 (G.R. 184800; 5 May 2010).

Posted in Cases, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Law School, Remedial Law | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

May a married woman, who has chosen to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, be allowed to revert to her maiden name when she renews her passport?

Posted by lexforiphilippines on May 20, 2010

A married woman is not prohibited from using her maiden name upon marriage; she has an option, not a duty, to use her husband’s surname (Article 370, Civil Code; Yasin vs. Hon. Judge Shari’a District Court, 311 Phil. 696, 707 [1995]).  Accordingly, a married woman who applies for a passport for the first time is allowed to use her maiden name.  If she opts to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may not revert to the use of her maiden name, except in the following instances as enumerated in Section 5(d) of Republic Act No.  8239 or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996: (1) death of husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4) nullity of marriage.  In other words, she may not revert to the use of her maiden name in her replacement passport as long as her marriage subsists.  So said the Supreme Court in the case of Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs (G.R. 169202; 5 March 2010)

(Click on Digested Cases under Tools to find a summary of the case of Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs G.R. 169202; 5 March 2010.)

Posted in Cases, Civil Law, Law School, Remedial Law | Leave a Comment »

Exemption of Cooperatives from Taxes

Posted by lexforiphilippines on February 18, 2010

The Supreme Court declared that members of cooperatives are exempt from the 20% withholding tax on the interest of their savings and time deposits maintained with the cooperative. See the digest at Tools + Digested Cases Tab.

Posted in Cases, Political Law, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dual Citizenship or Dual Allegiance?

Posted by lexforiphilippines on February 5, 2010

Since it is election time, we are hearing a lot of cases being filed to seek the disqualification of certain candidates from seeking elective posts.  Most notable is the case for disqualification of Vivien Tan, daughter of Lucio Tan, from seeking the congressional seat for a Quezon City district.

But what is really the basis for disqualification? Is it dual citizenship or dual allegiance?

In Cordora vs. COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009) , the Supreme Court explained -

Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.

Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.  For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis* is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli.**  Such a person, automatically and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.

Given the provisions on citizenship under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:

(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;

(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country;

(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.

There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may, without performing any act, be also a citizen of another state.

Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.  While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition – his active participation in the naturalization process.

Under Republic Act No. 9225,*** a Filipino who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country is allowed to retain his Filipino citizenship by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of taking an oath of allegiance is an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizen’s foreign citizenship.

Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for elective position.  Like any other natural-born Filipino, it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy and swear to the Oath of Allegiance contained therein.  On the other hand, a person with dual allegiance who seeks public office must (apart from meeting the qualifications under Philippine law) swear to an Oath of Allegiance and execute a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225.

* A child’s citizenship is determined by its parents’ citizenship, as in the Philippines.

** A child’s citizenship is determined by its place of birth, as in the United States of America.

*** The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.

Posted in Cases, Election Law, Political Law | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698; 1 December 2009

Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 7, 2010

Are appointive officials who intend to run in the 2010 elections,   automatically resigned from office upon the filing of their Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)? Visit our Tools Section and click Digested Cases for the Supreme Court’s answer to this query.

Posted in Cases, Election Law, Political Law, Remedial Law | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers