This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr.[42] the Court held that "[t]he divisor assumes an important role in determining whether or not holiday pay is already included in the monthly paid employee's salary and in the computation of his daily rate". This ruling was applied in Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation v. Trajano,[43] Producers Bank of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission[44] and Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] among others.[46] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, it is an established rule that an appellee (respondent) who is not also an appellant (petitioner) may assign error where the purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed (or filed a separate petition).[61] Thus, due to respondent's failure to institute a separate petition before this Court, the CA decision must perforce be considered final and binding as to it. | |||||
|
2003-03-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. PLDT says that the policy of the law is to promote healthy competition in the telecommunications industry.[10] According to PLDT, the LGC did not repeal the "in lieu of all taxes" provision in its franchise but only excluded from it local taxes, such as the local franchise tax. However, some franchises, like those of Globe and Smart, which contain "in lieu of all taxes" provisions were subsequently granted by Congress, with the result that the holders of franchises granted prior to January 1, 1992, when the LGC took effect, had to pay local franchise tax in view of the withdrawal of their local tax exemption. It is argued that it is this disparate situation which R.A. No. 7925, § 23 seeks to rectify. | |||||