Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
f) That respondent shall pay petitioner educational expenses of the children upon presentation of proof of payment of such expenses.[23]
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2012-03-06	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Justice Carpio's dissent concurs with this view, stating that to limit its application to the Banilad Friar Lands Estate will result in class legislation. RA 9443 supposedly should be extended to lands similarly situated, citing the case of Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.[30]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is different in the Philippine setting. In Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[77] the constitutionality of a provision in the charter of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), a government financial institution (GFI), was challenged for maintaining its rank-and-file employees under the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), even when the rank-and-file employees of other GFIs had been exempted from the SSL by their respective charters. Finding that the disputed provision contained a suspect classification based on salary grade, the Court deliberately employed the standard of strict judicial scrutiny in its review of the constitutionality of said provision. More significantly, it was in this case that the Court revealed the broad outlines of its judicial philosophy, to wit:Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution. The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special protection by the Constitution. When these violations arise, this Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. Rational basis should not suffice.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner also appealed[16] to the NLRC on the sole issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[17] that in case of illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.[18]
	GR NO. 160396 2005-09-06	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JULY 1 v. COA PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ
The principle of equal protection is not a barren concept that may be casually swept aside. While it does not demand absolute equality, it requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike, both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. Verily, equal protection and security shall be accorded every person under identical or analogous circumstances.[14]
	GR NO. 159700 2005-06-30	ROHBERT A. AMBROS v. COA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the purpose of enacting laws over matters within its jurisdiction, the state is recognized as enjoying a wide range of discretion. It is not necessary that the classification be based on scientific or marked differences of things or in their relation. Neither is it necessary that the classification be made with mathematical nicety. Hence, legislative classification may in many cases properly rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection guaranty does not preclude the legislature from recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is addressed to evils as they may appear.[44]