legal Free Legal Advice

[muffin]

No. Only persons 18 and above but below 21 who get married need parental consent.

 

what about parental advice?

[muffin]

NO. since he/she is over 21 years old already at the time and a defect in the parental ADVICE is not a ground for annulment. Furthermore, no marriage is AUTOMATICALLY void. There must still be a judicial declaration to that effect. In other words, the courts must first declare said marriage to be null and void.

 

 

What's the use of having the parents sign a parental advice then if a defect in it is not a ground for annulment?

 

How much is an annulment nowadays that wouldn't require you to have personal appearance? Any contacts to help my friend? Please PM me... thanks!

[anjinsan]

sir. i have a friend na may baby less than a year old. isinunod yung apelyido ng baby sa father ng baby although theyre not married and just lived-in together for only three months. ngayon hiwalay na sila and hindi naman nagbibigay ng sustento yung father ng baby. can she still change the surname of her baby to her surname? what future complications will she encounter if ever? thanks in advance

 

can anyone answer this?

[redax]

What's the use of having the parents sign a parental advice then if a defect in it is not a ground for annulment?

 

How much is an annulment nowadays that wouldn't require you to have personal appearance? Any contacts to help my friend? Please PM me... thanks!

 

Lack of parental consent when required makes the marriage voidable.

Parental advice, again when required, is only a requisite for the issuance of a marriage license. If parties are able to acquire a license even without the required parental consent, the marriage is valid.

[freelicker]

QUOTE (handlewithcare @ Apr 25 2009, 10:00 AM)

sir. i have a friend na may baby less than a year old. isinunod yung apelyido ng baby sa father ng baby although theyre not married and just lived-in together for only three months. ngayon hiwalay na sila and hindi naman nagbibigay ng sustento yung father ng baby. can she still change the surname of her baby to her surname? what future complications will she encounter if ever? thanks in advance

 

 

can anyone answer this?

 

There are several ways of correcting the same (not considering the consequences). The first is to file for correction of entry with the LCR claiming that the entry was inadvertent. You can try to use the argument that because the parents are not married, then the child should follow the name of the mother and not the father. This alternative would not be too costly or difficult because it is an administrative correction.

 

The second way would be more costly and time consuming. This would entail filing a court case to correct the entry showing that there was a material error in the birth certificate of the child. This would require a court hearing and as such a lawyer needs to be hired for the same. However, this is a safer alternative inasmuch as the correction will be ordered by the court.

 

The consequence of these actions would be that if the father objects to the same, then there might be a legal battle that can end up with a criminal case of falsification of a public document (the birth certificate).

 

The other legal eagles here might be able to add some more thoughts.

[searcher]

I need some legal advice.

 

The employee in a private company is on maternity leave (ceasarian) May 1 and wants to plans to go back to work on Jun 1.

Considering that the maternity leave is 60 days or 75 days what are the rules?

 

The reference I have is:

Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules

http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/populatio...phi/phi_065.htm

Section 14. Married women may go on maternity leave for less than sixty (60) days. When an employee wants to report back...

 

1. Is it the choice of the employee or employer?

2. What is the law on this so I can show it to our HR?

 

I would appreciate your help. Thanks

[Dr_PepPeR]

I need some legal advice.

 

The employee in a private company is on maternity leave (ceasarian) May 1 and wants to plans to go back to work on Jun 1.

Considering that the maternity leave is 60 days or 75 days what are the rules?

 

The reference I have is:

Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules

http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/populatio...phi/phi_065.htm

Section 14. Married women may go on maternity leave for less than sixty (60) days. When an employee wants to report back...

 

1. Is it the choice of the employee or employer?

2. What is the law on this so I can show it to our HR?

 

I would appreciate your help. Thanks

 

Under the Labor Code, if you are a pregnant employee who has been working at your company for at least six months in the last 12 months, you are currently entitled to two weeks leave before your expected date of delivery, and another four weeks after your baby is born if you deliver normally.

 

If you are covered by Social Security (SSS) and have paid at least three monthly maternity contributions in the twelve-month period prior to your delivery, your company may decide to give you a 60-day paid leave, which is the number of days you're entitled to be paid as provided by the SSS Law for normal deliveries. If you deliver via a caesarian section, the SSS Law entitles you to an added 18 days of paid maternity benefits.

 

The Labor Code also entitles you to an extended leave without pay in the cases of pregnancy-related complications or illnesses that prevent you from working.

 

You are expected to return to work after your approved maternity leave period. If you have to extend your leave because of an illness or complication related to your pregnancy or delivery, you may ask your employer may extend your leave. You will need to provide a medical certificate for this. However, an extension of your maternity leave will be taken out of your unused vacation and/or sick leave credits, if any, or allowed without pay if you don't have any leave credits left.

 

If you want to return to work before the 60 day period, it is your choice but your employer may require you to submit a medical certificate that you are in fact fit to work. Just ask your employer to look at the Labor Code, your company's HR should have one.

[b1gbeauty89]

Under the Labor Code, if you are a pregnant employee who has been working at your company for at least six months in the last 12 months, you are currently entitled to two weeks leave before your expected date of delivery, and another four weeks after your baby is born if you deliver normally.

 

If you are covered by Social Security (SSS) and have paid at least three monthly maternity contributions in the twelve-month period prior to your delivery, your company may decide to give you a 60-day paid leave, which is the number of days you're entitled to be paid as provided by the SSS Law for normal deliveries. If you deliver via a caesarian section, the SSS Law entitles you to an added 18 days of paid maternity benefits.

 

The Labor Code also entitles you to an extended leave without pay in the cases of pregnancy-related complications or illnesses that prevent you from working.

 

You are expected to return to work after your approved maternity leave period. If you have to extend your leave because of an illness or complication related to your pregnancy or delivery, you may ask your employer may extend your leave. You will need to provide a medical certificate for this. However, an extension of your maternity leave will be taken out of your unused vacation and/or sick leave credits, if any, or allowed without pay if you don't have any leave credits left.

 

If you want to return to work before the 60 day period, it is your choice but your employer may require you to submit a medical certificate that you are in fact fit to work. Just ask your employer to look at the Labor Code, your company's HR should have one.

 

 

i understand your explanation but what if under the following circumstances :

 

1. the employee will be on leave for 78 days (caesarian section) and her boss ask her to come to the office to report for work at least once a week during her maternityleave ? is this allowed? what rules apply with regards to the corresponding compensation ?

2. the employee have no more leave credits by the time she take here maternity and she does not qualify to benefit the maternity benefits from SSS since she have exceeded the 4 required deliveries ( she's on her 6th delivery) , the maternity would then be considered as leave without pay? if with pay to what leave category should it be considered since its not vacation nor sick leave?

 

hope you can enlighten me on this ...thanks in advance.

[Dr_PepPeR]

i understand your explanation but what if under the following circumstances :

 

1. the employee will be on leave for 78 days (caesarian section) and her boss ask her to come to the office to report for work at least once a week during her maternityleave ? is this allowed? what rules apply with regards to the corresponding compensation ?

2. the employee have no more leave credits by the time she take here maternity and she does not qualify to benefit the maternity benefits from SSS since she have exceeded the 4 required deliveries ( she's on her 6th delivery) , the maternity would then be considered as leave without pay? if with pay to what leave category should it be considered since its not vacation nor sick leave?

 

hope you can enlighten me on this ...thanks in advance.

 

Just an opinion:

1. If the employee is on maternity leave, she cannot be forced to report to the office. Of course, if she agrees to report to work, then she waives her right to avail of the continuous maternity leave. Compensation will still be based on average weekly rates.

2. The company may apply the leaves against unused VL and SL leave credits but once this is consumed, then it will be leave without pay.

[searcher]

Thank you Dr. Pepper

[dogbite]

Dear Guys,

 

I need a legal advise regarding my failed relationship. I had a leave in partner for almost 15 years and blessed with 2 kids. The problem is this, I was able to invest some properties and a house under my name but the girl doesn't want to leave the house. The girl had her boyfriend na rin and I had my own family too and leave on a different house.

 

Please advise me what legal grounds to do since she doesn't want to vacate the house I owned.

[GODzilla]

Dear Guys,

 

I need a legal advise regarding my failed relationship. I had a leave in partner for almost 15 years and blessed with 2 kids. The problem is this, I was able to invest some properties and a house under my name but the girl doesn't want to leave the house. The girl had her boyfriend na rin and I had my own family too and leave on a different house.

 

Please advise me what legal grounds to do since she doesn't want to vacate the house I owned.

 

File an ejectment case. Just remember though that properties acquired during a common-law relationship is co-owned by the parties. Also, be prepared for the repurcussions to follow in the event you decide to evict her such as her asking for support for your children with her or as i have mentioned, claiming half of said property.

[dogbite]

File an ejectment case. Just remember though that properties acquired during a common-law relationship is co-owned by the parties. Also, be prepared for the repurcussions to follow in the event you decide to evict her such as her asking for support for your children with her or as i have mentioned, claiming half of said property.

 

Thanks for the advise Sir, my other problem is that she is keeping the title of the house. I tried to settle with her thru 50/50 sharing but she doesnt want it. Another thing is, Iam working abroad, would it be possible to get a lawyer in Philippines and file the ejectment case for me.

[dylandark]

HI good day to all. ano po bang pedeng mangyari dito, ito facts. Brothers A and B ay meron nang di pagkakaunawaan kay Brothers C and D, then one night si A at C ay nagkatagpo at nagkainitan hanggang nauwi sa suntukan, nangyari ito sa tapat ng bahay ni Bro A and B, then nakita ito ni B then natural tutulungan niya ung kapatid niyang si A, kumuha sya ng samurai na di naman matalas (nakatambak na lang sa bakuran) at pinampalo nya kay C, so lumalabas A and B vs C na, mayamaya dumating si D na bro ni C na may dalang gulok(bolo) at sumali na din sa gulo gamit yung gulok tinamaan si A sa ulo(back part), hangang sa parang nagrarambol na sila, si C naman marami din sugat pero di malala. at dahil nga may tama na sa ulo si A eh tumakbo na sya papalayo at si B mabilis na din pumasok sa bahay nila at ini-lock yung gate. Matapos nun hindi pa din umalis sila Bro C and D, nagsisisigaw sa tapat na bahay, kinakalbog yung gate, pilit na inaakyat yung bakod, at sigaw ng sigaw na "papatayin ko yang mga anak mo boy! Ilabas mo sila dito!"(dad nila A and matagal sila dun, si C pilit pang hinabol at hinanap yung nakatakbong si A at si D namn naiwan dun para abangan yung lalabas sa gate at dala pa din yung gulok. matagal silang nagpaikot-ikot hanggang dumating mga ppulis at saka sila nagtatatakbo papalayo. Kinabukasan nagdemanda si C and D ng attempted homicide. ano po bang pwedeng gawin nila A and B dito. if any ano bang crime ang nacommit ni A and B, and ano bang crime ang nacommit ni C and D? sorry po at napakahaba. pinsan ko po si A and B, gusto ko lang po makatulong sa kanila. pinayuhan sila ng fiscal na wag na muna kumuha abogado kasi di pa nmn kailangan sa ngayon. pa-shed namn po ng some light. MARAMING SALAMAT PO!!!

[dylandark]

i forgot to mention that brothers C and D just came from a drinking session and maybe intoxicated at some level pero mukha namn di lasing na lasing kasi kaya pa nila makipagrambol in fact tinakbuhan pa sila nung nakalaban nila, and si D is a well known long time drug addict sa aming lugar. minsan nangttrip na lang yan ng kahit sino. even me pinagttripan nun. gusto ko lang idagdag maybe it would make any difference. THANKS AGAIN!