This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petitioner cites our ruling in the case of Saballa v. NLRC,[23] where we held that financial statements audited by independent auditors constitute the normal method of proof of the profit and loss performance of the company. Our ruling in the case of Bogo-Medellin Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc., et al. v. NLRC, et al.[24] was likewise invoked. In this case, we held: … The Court has previously ruled that financial statements audited by independent external auditors constitute the normal method of proof of the profit and loss performance of a company. On the matter of the withdrawal of the service award, the petitioner argues that it is the employee's length of service which is taken as a factor in the grant of this benefit, and not whether the company acquired profit or not.[25] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Proclamation No. 84 cannot be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. As pointed out earlier, respondents' license is not a contract to which the protection accorded by the non-impairment clause may extend.[35] Even if the license were, it is settled that provisions of existing laws and a reservation of police power are deemed read into it, because it concerns a subject impressed with public welfare.[36] As it is, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.[37] | |||||