Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION -MANILA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163026 2012-08-29	HEIRS OF ARCADIO CASTRO v. RENA TO LOZADA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In his Order[14] dated August 12, 1996, Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao affirmed the Regional Director's ruling. Secretary Garilao concurred with the Regional Director's finding that Arcadio Castro, Sr., assuming him to be the bona fide tenant of Lot 546, had violated Land Tenure Administration (LTA) AO No. 2, series of 1956 when he leased the subject landholding already allocated to him without prior consent of the DAR. Citing the investigation report of Land Inspector-Designate Rogelio I. Estrella, the SinumpaangSalaysay of the tenants-applicants and the Joint SinumpaangSalaysay of barangay kagawads Renato Inovero and LuisitoSabarriaga confirming that it is the tenants-applicants who are in possession and actual cultivators of Lot 546, Secretary Garilaoruled thatArcadio Castro, Sr. failed to comply with the requirement of personal cultivation under LTA AO No. 2, series of 1956. The arguments on non- retroactivity of administrative rules and regulations, as well as Arcadio Castro, Sr.'s alleged vested right to acquire Lot 546, were rejected by Secretary Garilao who ruled that the tenant-applicants have the right of preference to purchase their respective portions of the said landholding.
	GR No. 175558 2012-02-08	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NATHANIEL DOZA CARPIO, J.
Since De Gracia, et al. pre-terminated their contracts, Skippers claims they are liable for their repatriation expenses[33] in accordance with Section 19(G) of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996 which states: G. A seaman who requests for early termination of his contract shall be liable for his repatriation cost as well as the transportation cost of his replacement. The employer may, in case of compassionate grounds, assume the transportation cost of the seafarer's replacement.
	GR No. 177578 2012-01-25	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent Oberto S. Lobusta is a seaman who has worked for Magsaysay Maritime Corporation since 1994.[4] In March 1998, he was hired again as Able Seaman by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation in behalf of its principal Wastfel-Larsen Management A/S. The employment contract[5] provides for Lobusta's basic salary of US$515 and overtime pay of US$206 per month. It also provides that the standard terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels, approved per Department Order No. 33 of the Department of Labor and Employment and Memorandum Circular No. 55 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA Standard Employment Contract), both series of 1996, shall be strictly and faithfully observed.
	GR No. 154460 2005-11-22	LAURO C. DEGAMO v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORP. QUISUMBING, J.
Respondents counter that the Civil Code provision on extinctive prescription applies only to obligations that are intrinsically civil in nature and is inapplicable to labor cases. Respondents assert that petitioner's demand was made more than one year from his date of arrival in the Philippines, contrary to what is prescribed in Section 28[7] of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996.[8] They add that the institution of the action was beyond the three-year period prescribed in Article 291 of the Labor Code as his employment with the respondents' ended on March 4, 1995 but the complaint was filed only on March 2, 2001.