This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence to the foregoing judicial precedents set forth in ASTEC and SURNECO. The principle means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[70] | |||||
|
2016-01-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| ZCWD is mistaken in arguing that such treatment violated the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution. The equal protection clause allows classification provided that it is based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation.[25] As explained in Aquino v. Philippine Ports Authority,[26] the distinction between employees hired before and after July 1, 1989 was based on reasonable differences which was germane to the objective of the SSL to standardize the salaries of government employees, to wit: As explained earlier, the different treatment accorded the second sentence (first paragraph) of Section 12 of RA 6758 to the incumbents as of 1 July 1989, on one hand, and those employees hired on or after the said date, on the other, with respect to the grant of non-integrated benefits lies in the fact that the legislature intended to gradually phase out the said benefits without, however, upsetting its policy of non-diminution of pay and benefits. | |||||