tazman Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 What do y'all think? Should I just get a router? Hi Oral, I don't think its necessary to get a router. If you are using the server as a gateway to the Internet another alternative is getting another network card. The first network card will be connected to your internet connection (if DSL) and the other one will be for your internal network. Make sure you use a private network address (192.168.x.x - class C) for your internal address so that it does not have problems with the outside network (internet). Hope this helps you out. Quote Link to comment
stpatr3k Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Ay tama si Tazman ganyan din ginawa ko nung dati pala 192.168.X.X > ibig sabihin yung mga workstation mo din ganon din. Quote Link to comment
tazman Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 OralSpecialist, You need to ensure that your workstations and server belong to the same IP Address network, meaning if your are using 192.168.1.254 as the server the workstations should be on the 192.168.1.x network using a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 (Class C Network) with their gateway as the IP address of your server. Also a possible solution to sharing the computers aside from having the same workgroup/domain name is creating a LMHOSTS file (you can create this with notepad and putting the IP address and Computer Name per line) and enabling this. You should first try to find the computer using its IP Address as the search element. Quote Link to comment
matlock Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 hey u in there na? Lyssa, sinong kausap mo ma'am. Medyo kasi may subliminal meaning ang tanong mo eh. This is just a clarificatory question.... Quote Link to comment
-=extreme=- Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 If you're using Windows 2003 server, will act as a router, the server must have a dialup connection or DSL connection, and also have network card for LAN connection. - Make sure your server can connect to the internet like browsing.- under the network properties, highlight the modem/dsl modem right click properties, under advance tab make sure the Internet connection sharing have a check mark and select the lan card that you want to have internet access. - on the workstation side, make sure that you have server assigned Ip/ dhcp so the server will just assign automatically what ip address your workstation will have.-under the internet option make sure automatic detect settings have a checked mark. Quote Link to comment
ilocana Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hi, sweets. Maybe this is girl talk but knowing fully well how you can suspend your judgment, you can just run through this nary a thought or so. I hate to see a good thing gone sour. Because there isn't enough time for a chit chat, a sneak, a text.. the rush that challenges the word understanding. what is a relationship for. Yes, like men and women, they come in various sizes and shapes. AND levels. A relationship on a per availability basis. A thinking person texting, keeping in touch even if the other end of the line is frozen. It happened; it happens. I don't want to lose you either. But maybe, just maybe we are too preoccupied to realize relationships are nurtured and sustained not so much by grand acts but by small acts. More than sweet talk. I appreciate you for accepting me, the past behind inasmuch as I love the Abet as-is- where-is. Tomorrows are not within reach. But music which has bind us and the most romantic times spent, I quote a Carly Simon: I love you tomorrow as I love you today. sweets Quote Link to comment
Hachidan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hi, sweets. Maybe this is girl talk but knowing fully well how you can suspend your judgment, you can just run through this nary a thought or so. I hate to see a good thing gone sour. Because there isn't enough time for a chit chat, a sneak, a text.. the rush that challenges the word understanding. what is a relationship for. Yes, like men and women, they come in various sizes and shapes. AND levels. A relationship on a per availability basis. A thinking person texting, keeping in touch even if the other end of the line is frozen. It happened; it happens. I don't want to lose you either. But maybe, just maybe we are too preoccupied to realize relationships are nurtured and sustained not so much by grand acts but by small acts. More than sweet talk. I appreciate you for accepting me, the past behind inasmuch as I love the Abet as-is- where-is. Tomorrows are not within reach. But music which has bind us and the most romantic times spent, I quote a Carly Simon: I love you tomorrow as I love you today. sweets my my my, your post sounds sad and tragic. somehow, i felt like i've said the same line of thoughts to someone too... or maybe i did too. Quote Link to comment
Hachidan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 hey u in there na? hey lys!! i didn't expect i'd find you here too. have you taken the bar yet? how's it been? it's been ages since we last saw each other.. PM me if you're online, we have things to talk about. :evil: Quote Link to comment
Butsoy Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 (edited) Hi, sweets. Maybe this is girl talk but knowing fully well how you can suspend your judgment, you can just run through this nary a thought or so. I hate to see a good thing gone sour. Because there isn't enough time for a chit chat, a sneak, a text.. the rush that challenges the word understanding. what is a relationship for. Yes, like men and women, they come in various sizes and shapes. AND levels. A relationship on a per availability basis. A thinking person texting, keeping in touch even if the other end of the line is frozen. It happened; it happens. I don't want to lose you either. But maybe, just maybe we are too preoccupied to realize relationships are nurtured and sustained not so much by grand acts but by small acts. More than sweet talk. I appreciate you for accepting me, the past behind inasmuch as I love the Butsoy as-is- where-is. Tomorrows are not within reach. But music which has bind us and the most romantic times spent, I quote a Carly Simon: I love you tomorrow as I love you today. sweets My Ilocana: Off topic ka sweets dito....but we can expand further or degress a bit from the legalese of all those that affects life in general and personal relationship in particular. Love ko talaga ito si Ilocana kahit anu pa sabihin nila at kahit anu pa mangyari. Irreplaceable yan sa buhay ko si Ilocana. Anyway what causes legal problems in marital relationships or any relationship for that matter is the small things that are being left and brushed-aside---thinking or assuming that the other party will understand. At the end of the day... one will just wonder how in the hell love faded away. How much does it cost to get married now a days? a simple marriage?. and how much does it cost to have it anulled?. It would be better to discover the real person of the man you lov and the real person of the woman you love before jumping on and taking each others hand before the sacred altar of matrimony. Being a friend first and foremost and lovers in the ultimate till the end. Sorry ha mga paneros... balik uli sa legal Butsoy Edited July 15, 2003 by Butsoy Quote Link to comment
Hachidan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 any query about legal problems...? wag kang mahiya.. free legal advise ni Butsoy... Atty Butsoy and other lawyers in the house! hope you're doing fine in there. i got a legal question i wanna throw in. here goes.. Facts: - A, inc. is a company engage in outsourcing services here in pinas catering to clients abroad - B, inc. is a newly formed company, owned by majority if not all of the incorporators of A, inc. also to engage in outsourcing services just like A, inc. - A, inc. informed its employees that it will be closing shop very soon - B, inc. drafted an employment contract which provides, among other common employment contractual provisions... * an employee voluntarily resigned from A, inc. * that his/her tenure from A, inc. will be carried over to B, inc. * they will be subject to the provisions of the contract (no mention of security of tenure naturally since its under contractual provisions already) * a waiver of an employee not to engage in similar job to other companies engage in similar business with B, inc. in a period of 36 months * and the breach of the same, an amount of 1M plus other liquidated expenses, legal fees shall be imposed on the employee - some employees of A, inc. already signed such an employment contract issues: - whether or not, a right to pursue the profession of choice (which happen to be your field of experties, digital art, among others but mostly intellectual properties) is waivable. - whether or not, the damages setforth is demandable. - whether or not, it is legal for the incorporators of A, inc. to dissolve its company and form a new one which will continue the business of A, inc. but effectively makes all regular employees of A, inc. contractual employees now of B, inc? - whether or not, the transfer or tenure from A, inc. to B, inc. is standing considering that employees will no be under the contractual agreement between B, inc. and its employees. i really hope you guys can help me on this. thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment
Butsoy Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hachidan: Once you are employed by a company by reason of your expertise and professional capabilities... all intelectual property made formed or created pursuant to your engagement as a regular employee of that company becomes property of that firm you are working for. all provisions of a consensual contract ---provided it is not illegal or contrary to law and the provisions of the new Civil Code and other special laws are enforceable and valid. There is no prohibition in law which restricts the stockholder and incorporators of a company the decision to retire the firm or shorten its corporate life---provided they pay all accountabilities and other labor related actions of the firm requiring disursment of money. Likewise the same incoporators can disssolve the firm and form a new one with entirely different set of policies but same business. do hope it helps... Butsoy Quote Link to comment
jackryan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Masters! I hope someone can help me get clarity on this. Employee has been with an American MNC for the last 11 years. The local legal entity has a special retirement fund with a local leading bank that basically vests retirement benefits to anyone that reaches 5 years service and above. The MNC announced a one year period where everyone is "at risk" of their employment. If they are involuntary separated, they are covered by the special separation funds from corporate HQ and not through the local retirement during the period of one year that ends December this year. Questions: 1) If the employee is involuntary separated is that treated as redundancy or retrenchment2) If the function/role is transferred to another country and the person does not agree to move there, is involuntary separation applicable, if yes, is treated as a retrenchment or redundancy?3) If the person is paid from the special corporate hq funded (not from Philippines local legal entity), can the same person treat that as an special "incentive" fund to motivate folks to take a separation package?4) Likewise, does it mean that the same person can go after and claim for normal retirement pay given that the person is vested in the local retirement policy funds? FYI, The local retirement funds also cover for involuntary separation as long as it is not a termination with a cause but is unclear on whether it should be a mutually exclusive.5) Lastly, the local bank managing the retirement fund claims that if the retirement fund is not claimed by "retiring" employees, then the funds does not go back to the company but is forfeited in favor of the bank. Is this true? 6) Pahabol, what is the legal prescription period to go after a company and the retirement fund held by the bank?7) Huling pahabol, once the person is asked to sign the quit claim/waiver form, can he sign on it and just annotate it something like "with reservations..." ?8) Pinaka huli na talaga po, is there such a thing as "constructive dismissal" ? Maraming salamat po ! :boo: Quote Link to comment
Roubaix Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Atty Butsoy and other lawyers in the house! hope you're doing fine in there. i got a legal question i wanna throw in. here goes.. Facts: - A, inc. is a company engage in outsourcing services here in pinas catering to clients abroad - B, inc. is a newly formed company, owned by majority if not all of the incorporators of A, inc. also to engage in outsourcing services just like A, inc. - A, inc. informed its employees that it will be closing shop very soon - B, inc. drafted an employment contract which provides, among other common employment contractual provisions... * an employee voluntarily resigned from A, inc. * that his/her tenure from A, inc. will be carried over to B, inc. * they will be subject to the provisions of the contract (no mention of security of tenure naturally since its under contractual provisions already) * a waiver of an employee not to engage in similar job to other companies engage in similar business with B, inc. in a period of 36 months * and the breach of the same, an amount of 1M plus other liquidated expenses, legal fees shall be imposed on the employee - some employees of A, inc. already signed such an employment contract issues: - whether or not, a right to pursue the profession of choice (which happen to be your field of experties, digital art, among others but mostly intellectual properties) is waivable. - whether or not, the damages setforth is demandable. - whether or not, it is legal for the incorporators of A, inc. to dissolve its company and form a new one which will continue the business of A, inc. but effectively makes all regular employees of A, inc. contractual employees now of B, inc? - whether or not, the transfer or tenure from A, inc. to B, inc. is standing considering that employees will no be under the contractual agreement between B, inc. and its employees. i really hope you guys can help me on this. thanks in advance. taning ina, I thoguht I rid myself of Mr. A and Ms. B. S**t, they are back again. When am I going to get rid of these guys? Seriously, Hall of Fame Master Jedi Butsoy has supremely answered your query. I dare not to doubt him. Quote Link to comment
matlock Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I'll try to answer some of your questions: 1.) It depends. The company should state the cause of such involuntary separation. There is always the management prerogatives, provided it will favorable to both the company and employees. 2.) For me, there is constructive dismissal. In the case of Batungbakal vs. Associated Bank and NLRC, 168 SCRA 600, it was held that where an employer terminates an employee but by circumstances or strategem makes this appear as a resignation, there is contstuctive dismissal which entitles the employee to separation benefits. In your case, your company has offered their employees a special separation funds in case you involuntarily be separated from the company. 3.) In a way yes, the company makes it a point that their employees are well taken cared off when employees decide to avail of the separation benefits. 4.) Your query on this matter is unclear to me. 5.) It depends, you have to the the provisions set forth by the bank. But personally, this matter is between the company and the bank. 7.) Yes, you can place "with reservations...." should you have any doubts or questionable issues. In the case of Rizada vs. NLRC, 314 SCRA 714; Violeta vs. NLRC, 280 SCRA 520, it was held that in this jurisdiction, quitclaims, waivers and releaseas are looked upon with disfavor - they are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights. 8.) Yes, there is such thing as a constructive dismissal. There is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment. And an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits of theri monetary equivalent computed fromt he time his compensation was withheld from him to the time of his actual reinstatement (Rutaquio vs. NLRC, 307 SCRA 1). I hope I have clarified some of your concerns. Quote Link to comment
jackryan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Sir Matlock, Thanks for the very quick response. Let me try to make number 4 a bit clearer: 4) Likewise, does it mean that the same person can go after and claim for normal retirement pay given that the person is vested in the local retirement policy funds? FYI, The local retirement funds also cover for involuntary separation as long as it is not a termination with a cause but is unclear on whether it should be a mutually exclusive. a. If a person has been given a separation pay from the special separation funds set forth by the US corporate HQ, does it mean there is no legal impediment for the employee to also put a claim against the local retirement fund as the person is "vested" already?b. what conditions would bar the employee from getting the special separation pay (funded in the US) and the retirement fund pay-out (funded in the Philippines)c. I presume, the special separation pay is tax-free (treated as involuntary separation) and the local retirement fund payout is tax-subjected? Many thanks and more power ! Quote Link to comment
Hachidan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hachidan: Once you are employed by a company by reason of your expertise and professional capabilities... all intelectual property made formed or created pursuant to your engagement as a regular employee of that company becomes property of that firm you are working for. all provisions of a consensual contract ---provided it is not illegal or contrary to law and the provisions of the new Civil Code and other special laws are enforceable and valid. There is no prohibition in law which restricts the stockholder and incorporators of a company the decision to retire the firm or shorten its corporate life---provided they pay all accountabilities and other labor related actions of the firm requiring disursment of money. Likewise the same incoporators can disssolve the firm and form a new one with entirely different set of policies but same business. do hope it helps... Butsoy Butsoy, thanks for the quick reply. i've one more clarifications to make if you may. is the waiver of ones right to seek employment on his field of experties for 3 years (especially when it is in the artististic area, it is something that you do best, the only thing u know how and what to do), not contrary to public order, public policy, customs, etc? looks like it certainly isn't contrary to law as what i was hoping for, and this sure isn't preducial to a third party either... is there similar jurisprudence to this that might help? i was really hoping that this is, if not similar, worse, than that of CUI VS ARELLANO UNIVERSITY. Quote Link to comment
Roubaix Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Sir Butsoy, We really need another Lawyers EB. Lets think about making a psuedo law firm. Lets give our collective soul name. What do you say? Quote Link to comment
matlock Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I agree, I hope I can join that EB..... Quote Link to comment
bunjee Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 ATTY. BUTSOY, kilala na yata kita. Kung ikaw nga yung naiisip ko dun sa mandatory read namin sa CONSTI, eh isa lang ang masasabi ko, IDOL TALAGA KITA!!! Cool mo! I agree with JEDI MASTER ROUBAIX, an EB is in order. Quote Link to comment
the_broker Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Took 2 1/2 years of law in Ateneo. Does that count? sure Quote Link to comment
kswissone Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Its nice to see a legal thread here I'm just a fourth year law stude kaya marami pa ak bigas na kakainin. Mukhang madami "matitinik" na lawyers dito, matinik in law and in girls hope 2 b lyk u guys soon. Quote Link to comment
Wolf Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 hope we law studes can join in the EB. tsaka sana walang exams. Quote Link to comment
bunjee Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Dapat kasama lahat sa EB at syempre dapat walang exams, we all know na nakakapraning ang law exams. Our EB's should help us relax, not unduly complicate our lives. So Pareng WOLFSTER, i second the motion. Quote Link to comment
Guest templar Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 (edited) - A, inc. informed its employees that it will be closing shop very soon- B, inc. drafted an employment contract which provides, among other common employment contractual provisions... * an employee voluntarily resigned from A, inc. * that his/her tenure from A, inc. will be carried over to B, inc. * they will be subject to the provisions of the contract (no mention of security of tenure naturally since its under contractual provisions already) * a waiver of an employee not to engage in similar job to other companies engage in similar business with B, inc. in a period of 36 months * and the breach of the same, an amount of 1M plus other liquidated expenses, legal fees shall be imposed on the employee- some employees of A, inc. already signed such an employment contract issues:- whether or not, a right to pursue the profession of choice (which happen to be your field of experties, digital art, among others but mostly intellectual properties) is waivable. - whether or not, the damages setforth is demandable. - whether or not, it is legal for the incorporators of A, inc. to dissolve its company and form a new one which will continue the business of A, inc. but effectively makes all regular employees of A, inc. contractual employees now of B, inc? - whether or not, the transfer or tenure from A, inc. to B, inc. is standing considering that employees will no be under the contractual agreement between B, inc. and its employees.P.S. (Pahabol Sagot) 1. On the first issue - the constitutionality and legality of the "Non-Competition Clause" has been long settled under English law (where it originated), US law and Phil. law. It is actually a clause most widely used nowadays on employees with unique skills or talents that companies don't want their competitors to have. The premise is that the affected party is not actually prohibited from exercising his profession to earn a living and, consequently, his right to life and property are not violated. What he is prohibited from doing for a limited period of time is exercising his profession, by himself or in another partnership/company, in direct competition with his former employer. He is not prohibited from exercising his profession by himself or in another partnership/company for as long as it is not in direct competition with his former employer. And the prohibition is only for a limited period of time, the premise being that when he agreed to his contract he is deemed to have included the period of prohibition in his compensation package (i.e. he is deemed paid for the period he cannot work because of the non-compete clause). Where the prohibition is not absolute or, even if absolute, was compensated in an amount accepted in contract by the affected party, there can be no violation of that person's right to life or property. Trivia - When Purefoods bought Arce Ice Cream from the Arce family, they didn't have a non-compete clause in their agreement. Result - Purefoods came out with Selecta carrying all the flavors of Arce Ice Cream; the Arce family continued with their Arce Ice Cream brand name and flavors. Purefoods went to court but withdrew eventually. 2. On the second issue - Yes, one can provide for any amount of damages in a contract but any such damage provision is not necessarily due! Damages must be proven and any damage award will depend on the amount of damage proven or commensurate to the damage proven. 3. On the third & fourth issues - there is an inherent inconsistency in the consequences anticipated. How can the tenure of employees in A be carried over in B under a contractual arrangement? It's like saying I agree that you Mr. Santos has been employed by me since 3 yrs. ago by contract. I'm sure that in most cases, the tenure of the employees antedate the incorporation of B. So how can B agree to employ someone even before it came to exist? Even assuming that the longest tenure postdates the formation of B, how can B sustain the argument that these employees are contractual in nature when it recognizes "tenure" which is peculiarly associated with regular employment? Di ba "term" relates to contract, as "tenure" relates to regular employment? At any rate, contractual employees do not merely become such because of the presence of a contract; the nature of employment is and will depend on other concomittant circumstances obtaining at the time of employment. Thus, it is not the legality of the incorporation of B that is important; the issue is whether or not the incorporation of B and B's engagement of A's former employees changed the nature of employment of the employees. Based on the facts given (i.e. recognition of tenure, A and B being one and the same entity, and performance of tasks essential to the business of B ), my opinion is that it can be argued that the employees are not merely contractual workers of B but regular employees. Edited July 18, 2003 by templar666 Quote Link to comment
Guest templar Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Dapat kasama lahat sa EB at syempre dapat walang exams, we all know na nakakapraning ang law exams. Our EB's should help us relax, not unduly complicate our lives. So Pareng WOLFSTER, i second the motion. Cge walang exams .... trivia quiz na lang Example : Name the case where the girl sued for legal separation kasi ayaw na nyang i-BJ yung husband nya ..... he he he she couldn't swallow it anymore :evil: Or the criminal case of concubinage (sex under scandalous circumstances), which was proven beyond reasonable doubt, when the erring husband got his dick trapped inside his paramour's vagina (which developed severe cramps ) and they had to be taken to the hospital still "joined down below"? .... he he he ....don't you just love the law? .... it's actually the richest source of chismis about the high and mighty Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.