In People v. Buit, the Supreme Court convicted Alberto and Tessie Buit of illegal recruitment. They promised overseas jobs without proper authorization and collected fees from applicants. The Court emphasized that engaging in recruitment activities without a valid license constitutes illegal recruitment, regardless of monetary exchange.
In 2013, Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. (TSTSI) hired Stephanie Maitim and others as nursing aides for employment in Saudi Arabia. However, they were later compelled to sign new contracts reclassifying them as housekeepers with reduced salaries and longer working hours. After completing over three years of service, they were denied repatriation until local authorities intervened. Back in the Philippines, they filed complaints for underpayment and other labor violations. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, awarding salary differentials and benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld this decision, adding entitlements for food allowance and overtime pay. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s ruling, dismissing their claims. The Supreme Court later reinstated the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing the employer’s burden to prove the payment of proper compensation and resolving doubts in favor of the workers.
Maitim v. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. [January 15, 2025] Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that Campbridge’s registration of the “GREENSEAL” trademark was invalid. Greenseal Malaysia had prior use of the name globally, including in the Philippines since 2004. The Court emphasized that trade names of nationals from Paris Convention member states are protected without registration.
In 1987, Leoncio Melocoton married Jennifer Pring while still married to Susan Jimenez. In 2005, he sought to nullify his marriage to Pring, claiming bigamy. The Supreme Court upheld the marriage’s validity, ruling that Melocoton failed to prove his prior marriage was still subsisting during his marriage to Pring.
In People v. Estregan, the Supreme Court ruled that violations of procurement laws don’t automatically result in a public officer’s conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The prosecution must prove the officer’s role, evident bad faith or gross negligence, and that such actions caused undue injury or unwarranted benefits.
In Martin v. Ala, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala, filed by her former brother-in-law, Denis Guy Martin. The Court found Atty. Ala administratively liable for urging police officers to shoot her nephew during an altercation, violating ethical standards. Additionally, she was reprimanded for using abusive language in legal pleadings. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months and one year, to be served successively.
In Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Supreme Court upheld BSP’s authority to close banks without prior hearing if substantial evidence shows insolvency or potential losses to depositors. The Court ruled that only majority stockholders can challenge such actions within 10 days, ensuring prompt regulatory intervention.
Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [January 14, 2025] Read More »
In Empuerto v. Cabrillos, the Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC’s) order containing certain terms compromise agreement between the parents of the child as to the latter’s custody cannot be considered a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody given that the father, Jeffrey, was not served with summons nor given the opportunity to file an answer. The Court remanded the case to the RTC for trial.
In Lacida v. Subejano, the Supreme Court dismissed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rejoice S. Subejano, who borrowed money from Megamitch Financial Resources Corporation while serving as its legal counsel. The Court found the transaction fell within exceptions to the prohibition on borrowing from clients under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
In Green v. Green, the Supreme Court declared the marriage between Jeffrey and Rowena Green void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity. Evidence showed her pathological gambling, infidelity, dishonesty, and substantial debts, making her unable to fulfill marital obligations. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity need not be a clinical diagnosis but must be proven through clear acts of dysfunctionality.
