legal Free Legal Advice

[Pinoymale]

Ahhh... Thanks boss.

 

Yung nagtatanong is yung erpat nung isang bata dito. Eh kasi parang na a adik na yung bata, lagi naglalaro although pa 2 hrs 2 hrs lang

 

Ah ok. Ingat lang kasi baka ireklamo ng erpat ung business mo sa city hall, sakit lang sa ulo yun!

[hoowat]

pa help po mga Sir

A friend of mine is older than the guy...and They both wanna get married...What other options they would do if the guy is 22 and the need of parental advice must be met...

 

Thanks

[rocco69]

dahil nasa edad na naman sila, kapag di makakuha ng parental advice yung partner niya, made-delay lang ng tatlong buwan yung marriage license nila, kaya... mag-apply ng maaga ng marriage license para tumakbo agad yung 3-month period.

 

pa help po mga Sir

A friend of mine is older than the guy...and They both wanna get married...What other options they would do if the guy is 22 and the need of parental advice must be met...

 

Thanks

[subsistence]

Ah ok. Ingat lang kasi baka ireklamo ng erpat ung business mo sa city hall, sakit lang sa ulo yun!

 

Sir, ano naman po ang pwedeng gawin ng City Hall? Confiscate mga units ko?

 

Tapos, hindi ba pwedeng sabihin ko na on process na yung pagkuha ko ng business permit (which is what i'm doing right now)

 

thanks po ulit, more power!

[hoowat]

so ok lang po sir na wlang parental advice..madelayed lang ng 3mos?

 

Thank you for replying

[rocco69]

Yup. According to Art. 14 of the Family Code:

 

Art. 15. Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and twenty-five shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for advice upon the intended marriage. If they do not obtain such advice, or if it be unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be issued till after three months following the completion of the publication of the application therefor. A sworn statement by the contracting parties to the effect that such advice has been sought, together with the written advice given, if any, shall be attached to the application for marriage license. Should the parents or guardian refuse to give any advice, this fact shall be stated in the sworn statement.

 

so ok lang po sir na wlang parental advice..madelayed lang ng 3mos?

 

Thank you for replying

[hoowat]

Thank You Sir Rocco69

[kg_snot]

Sir Rocco69,

 

panu po kung sa hearing sa labor arbiter pinalalabas ng company na d nila tinanggal yung employee at nagabsent lang daw. sa hearing unang nag issue ng return to work order na asking for written explanation for the unjustified absences since june 1, 2010 - exactly 2 months and 11 days after magstart na d pumasok kasi tinanggal nga. kung kayo po tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po ang magagamit na defense against sa employee basing dito po sa series of events sa baba?

 

2010 timeline:

• 
   
  
• may 5 - ininform si employee na ireretrench by june 30 (verbal lang)
  
• may 25 - ininform si employee na until may 31 na lang sya, declined the request for resignation letter (verbal lang)
  
• may 28 - payday, walang na recieve na sahod, wala na rin dumating na supplies for the month of june
  
• may 30 - pinai-email yung resignation letter (text message recieved, did not comply)
  
• may 31 - still no salary
  
• june 1 - filed for illegal dismissal
  
• june 2 - 2nd half ng allowance for april recieved (2 gives eh)
  
• june 21 - kung pede daw magusap (text message)
  
• june 24 - 1st hearing, d sumipot
  
• july 14 - 2nd hearing, d sumipot
  
• july 15 - bat mo pa pinaabot sa ganito (text message recieved)
  
• aug 11 - 3rd hearing, respondent's lawyer issued a return to work order, explain in writing the absences since june 1, dated aug 11, 2010 (declined), nasa payroll pa daw si employee
  
• aug 13 - secured a bank statement from jan2010 to aug2010, proved no salary recieved for the May 15-31 cutoff
  
• sept 1 - 4th hearing, for position paper
  
• sept 21 - 5th hearing, issuance of position paper
  

 

Notes:

• 
   
  
• field worker, no time records, doctors' signature ang proof ng attendance ng nature of work nya
  
• 3 years and 6 months tenured employee as of may 31,2010
  
• no text message sent from the employee to the employer since may
  
• no letter or any document sent by company for awol process
  
• text messages were also saved dated may 28 to present from co-employees confirming the dismissal and non-payment of salary
  
• company issued cellphone, postpaid
  

 

please need assistance.

Edited September 2, 2010 by kg_snot

[rocco69]

base sa kwento mo, ang gagawing depensa ng employer ay nag-AWOL ang employee, hindi siya tinanggal.

 

whether paniniwalaan ito ng arbiter ay ibang istorya na.

 

Sir Rocco69,

 

panu po kung sa hearing sa labor arbiter pinalalabas ng company na d nila tinanggal yung employee at nagabsent lang daw. sa hearing unang nag issue ng return to work order na asking for written explanation for the unjustified absences since june 1, 2010 - exactly 2 months and 11 days after magstart na d pumasok kasi tinanggal nga. kung kayo po tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po ang magagamit na defense against sa employee basing dito po sa series of events sa baba?

 

2010 timeline:

• 
   
  
• may 5 - ininform si employee na ireretrench by june 30 (verbal lang)
  
• may 25 - ininform si employee na until may 31 na lang sya, declined the request for resignation letter (verbal lang)
  
• may 28 - payday, walang na recieve na sahod, wala na rin dumating na supplies for the month of june
  
• may 30 - pinai-email yung resignation letter (text message recieved, did not comply)
  
• may 31 - still no salary
  
• june 1 - filed for illegal dismissal
  
• june 2 - 2nd half ng allowance for april recieved (2 gives eh)
  
• june 21 - kung pede daw magusap (text message)
  
• june 24 - 1st hearing, d sumipot
  
• july 14 - 2nd hearing, d sumipot
  
• july 15 - bat mo pa pinaabot sa ganito (text message recieved)
  
• aug 11 - 3rd hearing, respondent's lawyer issued a return to work order, explain in writing the absences since june 1, dated aug 11, 2010 (declined), nasa payroll pa daw si employee
  
• aug 13 - secured a bank statement from jan2010 to aug2010, proved no salary recieved for the May 15-31 cutoff
  
• sept 1 - 4th hearing, for position paper
  
• sept 21 - 5th hearing, issuance of position paper
  

 

Notes:

• 
   
  
• field worker, no time records, doctors' signature ang proof ng attendance ng nature of work nya
  
• 3 years and 6 months tenured employee as of may 31,2010
  
• no text message sent from the employee to the employer since may
  
• no letter or any document sent by company for awol process
  
• text messages were also saved dated may 28 to present from co-employees confirming the dismissal and non-payment of salary
  
• company issued cellphone, postpaid
  

 

please need assistance.

[play_boi]

What can we do? yung kakilala po ng grupo namin ay nag refer saamin ng isang deal. mga Kotse na ang sabi ay galing sa isang casino. Singanla saamin at ginamit na collateral pero dahil sa tiwala namin hindi na kami gaano nag usisa dahil matagal na naming sya kilala. Nung una ay humingi kami ng request na ang owner mismo ay pumapayag na ipagamit saamin ang auto sa isang kasulatan. Ngunit hindi niya ito sinunod! Kami ay nag tiwala hanggan sa isang araw ay ang mga auto na gamit namin ay kinuha ng mga may ari at ang sabi rent a car sila! In short niloko niya kami at hindi nag sabi ng totoo! May na invest kami na malaking pera dahil ang buong akala namin ay sangla ang auto.

 

Kami ay sumisingil sa kanya pero ayaw niya mag bayad! Ano ang pwede naming gawin? May mga properties sya at mga kotse! Applicable ba ditto ang notice of levy?

 

Thanks!

[rocco69]

estafa yang ginawa ng taong yan [falsely pretending to possess property Art. 315(2a)], pwede nyong ireklamo sa piskalya.

 

walang bisa yang "notice of levy" kung ito ay hindi galing sa korte. Pwede lang makuha yung properties niya sa pamamagitan ng court order, hindi sa pamamagitan ng notice na gawa-gawa nyo lang. ibig sabihin, kailangang magsampa muna kayo ng reklamo sa korte. pinaka d'best niyan, sumangguni na sa abugado otherwise, di nyo mababawi yang pera nyo (Moral of the story: pag pera na ang pinag-uusapan, wala yang tiwala-tiwala na yan, kailangang me kasulatan at palagi dapat may ebidensya kung ano ang karapatan ng kabilang partido dun sa ari-arian na dinidispatsa)

 

What can we do? yung kakilala po ng grupo namin ay nag refer saamin ng isang deal. mga Kotse na ang sabi ay galing sa isang casino. Singanla saamin at ginamit na collateral pero dahil sa tiwala namin hindi na kami gaano nag usisa dahil matagal na naming sya kilala. Nung una ay humingi kami ng request na ang owner mismo ay pumapayag na ipagamit saamin ang auto sa isang kasulatan. Ngunit hindi niya ito sinunod! Kami ay nag tiwala hanggan sa isang araw ay ang mga auto na gamit namin ay kinuha ng mga may ari at ang sabi rent a car sila! In short niloko niya kami at hindi nag sabi ng totoo! May na invest kami na malaking pera dahil ang buong akala namin ay sangla ang auto.

 

Kami ay sumisingil sa kanya pero ayaw niya mag bayad! Ano ang pwede naming gawin? May mga properties sya at mga kotse! Applicable ba ditto ang notice of levy?

 

Thanks!

[Immortal666]

Sir, I hope you can answer my question. I work in a call center as one of the operation managers. Our account was migrated to another site and only the agents were transferred. Us managers were not transferred since there were already existing managers in that site.

 

My dillema is that the company has no department or account to transfer us to. They are having us apply in some of the internal openings the company has. However, if we don't get accepted in those departments, we will have to consume our leaves. When we consume all our leaves, the company will put us in Temporary Lay Off (TLO) status and we will get no salary.

 

Based from what my manager told me, the company can have an employee stay on TLO status for a period of 6 months, and only after which if they don't find a placement for me, that's the time they are obliged to pay severance to an employee.

 

Does the law allow this? I have a lawyer friend who said that this is not legal and companies get away with such acts since employees hardly contest it. He says that the company should either place the employee or pay severance without having to wait 6 months.

 

So is it legal for a company to put an employee on TLO for 6 months not paying an employee salary or is my lawyer friend correct in saying it's not legal?

Edited September 10, 2010 by Immortal666

[b_9904]

^since your lawyer friend already gave you an advice why not file something with the labor arbiter?

 

however, do check your contract with the company or the company manual. check is they have a grievance mechanism. if so then take it to that committee/body first before filing something with the labor arbiter.

Edited September 10, 2010 by b_9904

[rocco69]

Ayon sa Art. 286 ng Labor Code:

 

Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. - The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall not reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

 

sa kaso mo, dahil walang openings at the moment para sa inyong managers, pwede kayong ipa-floating muna (Temporary Lay-Off ang tawag ng kumpanya mo sa status na ito). sabi nga ng 286, hindi ito nagte-terminate ng employment, pero dahil di naman pwedeng perpetually kang "floating", pwede lang ang floating status ng maximum of 6months. pag di ka pa nahanapan ng pwesto by that time, considered kang "constructively dismissed" at dapat ka nang mabayaran ng separation pay.

 

Alalahanin mo rin na ang prinsipyong umiiral salabor ay "no work, no pay". dahil di ka naman nagtratrabaho sa panahong floating ka, di ka entitled sa sweldo.

 

in short, tama ang HR ng kumpanya mo, hindi yang kaibigan mo (Note: ang assumption dito, talagang walang pwesto para sa managers at present, para masabi na "bona fide" ang suspension ng operations para sa inyo).

 

Sir, I hope you can answer my question. I work in a call center as one of the operation managers. Our account was migrated to another site and only the agents were transferred. Us managers were not transferred since there were already existing managers in that site.

 

My dillema is that the company has no department or account to transfer us to. They are having us apply in some of the internal openings the company has. However, if we don't get accepted in those departments, we will have to consume our leaves. When we consume all our leaves, the company will put us in Temporary Lay Off (TLO) status and we will get no salary.

 

Based from what my manager told me, the company can have an employee stay on TLO status for a period of 6 months, and only after which if they don't find a placement for me, that's the time they are obliged to pay severance to an employee.

 

Does the law allow this? I have a lawyer friend who said that this is not legal and companies get away with such acts since employees hardly contest it. He says that the company should either place the employee or pay severance without having to wait 6 months.

 

So is it legal for a company to put an employee on TLO for 6 months not paying an employee salary or is my lawyer friend correct in saying it's not legal?

Edited September 10, 2010 by rocco69

[kg_snot]

base sa kwento mo, ang gagawing depensa ng employer ay nag-AWOL ang employee, hindi siya tinanggal.

 

whether paniniwalaan ito ng arbiter ay ibang istorya na.

Sir Rocco69,

 

panu po kung sa hearing sa labor arbiter pinalalabas ng company na d nila tinanggal yung employee at nagabsent lang daw. sa hearing unang nag issue ng return to work order na asking for written explanation for the unjustified absences since june 1, 2010 - exactly 2 months and 11 days after magstart na d pumasok kasi tinanggal nga. kung kayo po tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po ang magagamit na defense against sa employee basing dito po sa series of events sa baba?

 

2010 timeline:

 

may 5 - ininform si employee na ireretrench by june 30 (verbal lang)

may 25 - ininform si employee na until may 31 na lang sya, declined the request for resignation letter (verbal lang)

may 28 - payday, walang na recieve na sahod, wala na rin dumating na supplies for the month of june

may 30 - pinai-email yung resignation letter (text message recieved, did not comply)

may 31 - still no salary

june 1 - filed for illegal dismissal

june 2 - 2nd half ng allowance for april recieved (2 gives eh)

june 21 - kung pede daw magusap (text message)

june 24 - 1st hearing, d sumipot

july 14 - 2nd hearing, d sumipot

july 15 - bat mo pa pinaabot sa ganito (text message recieved)

aug 11 - 3rd hearing, respondent's lawyer issued a return to work order, explain in writing the absences since june 1, dated aug 11, 2010 (declined), nasa payroll pa daw si employee

aug 13 - secured a bank statement from jan2010 to aug2010, proved no salary recieved for the May 15-31 cutoff

sept 1 - 4th hearing, for position paper

sept 21 - 5th hearing, issuance of position paper

 

 

 

Notes:

 

field worker, no time records, doctors' signature ang proof ng attendance ng nature of work nya

3 years and 6 months tenured employee as of may 31,2010

no text message sent from the employee to the employer since may

no letter or any document sent by company for awol process

text messages were also saved dated may 28 to present from co-employees confirming the dismissal and non-payment of salary

company issued cellphone, postpaid

 

 

 

please need assistance.

 

thanks po sa reply sir.

 

based po sa pagreresearch ko, twin requirements daw pag awol or job abandonment:

1. 
    
   
2. the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
   
3. a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship
   

 

i believe yung Return to Work Order ang gagamitin nila para maprove yung 2nd requirement sa awol. but basing sa date kung kelan nila inissue yung notice, 2 months and 11 days ng absent si employee and definitely 2 months after nila marecieve yung complaint ni employee. and please note na inissue yung Return to Work Order sa supposedly 3rd hearing since d sila sumipot sa first 2.

 

kung kyo po ang tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po magiging argument nyo para maprove yung twin requirements ng awol? or 50-50 ba ang kaso ni employee or medyo favorable kay employer?

 

sensya na po sa mga tanung.

Edited September 10, 2010 by kg_snot

[b_9904]

Ayon sa Art. 286 ng Labor Code:

 

Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. - The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall not reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

 

sa kaso mo, dahil walang openings at the moment para sa inyong managers, pwede kayong ipa-floating muna (Temporary Lay-Off ang tawag ng kumpanya mo sa status na ito). sabi nga ng 286, hindi ito nagte-terminate ng employment, pero dahil di naman pwedeng perpetually kang "floating", pwede lang ang floating status ng maximum of 6months. pag di ka pa nahanapan ng pwesto by that time, considered kang "constructively dismissed" at dapat ka nang mabayaran ng separation pay.

 

Alalahanin mo rin na ang prinsipyong umiiral salabor ay "no work, no pay". dahil di ka naman nagtratrabaho sa panahong floating ka, di ka entitled sa sweldo.

 

in short, tama ang HR ng kumpanya mo, hindi yang kaibigan mo (Note: ang assumption dito, talagang walang pwesto para sa managers at present, para masabi na "bona fide" ang suspension ng operations para sa inyo).

 

Sir,

 

Tanong lang po. diba sabi sa labor code its provisions should always be construed in favor of labor? if this is the case, wont the term "operation of a business or undertaking" indicate the ENTIRE or a SUBSTANTIAL part of a business as opposed to an account of the business only?

 

clarification lang po sir.

 

ty

[rocco69]

Tutoo yan na in case of doubt, lamang dapat ang labor. Kaya lang, sabi rin ng Korte Suprema:

 

While the Constitution provides that the State… shall protect the rights of the workers and promote their welfare, that constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy capital and management. Thus, the capital and management sectors must also be protected under a regime of justice and rule of law (National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 327 SCRA 158 [2000]).

 

Kung talagang walang paglalagyan sa inyo, di rin naman tamang pilitin ang kumpanya na swelduhan kayo ng di kayo nagtratrabaho. kaya nga ang tanong dito, "good faith" ba ang kumpanya sa pagtemporary lay-off sa inyo. Kung oo, di ka pwedeng magreklamo. Pero, kung pakana lang nila ito para di kayo pa-swelduhin, pwede kang magreklamo.

 

 

Sir,

 

Tanong lang po. diba sabi sa labor code its provisions should always be construed in favor of labor? if this is the case, wont the term "operation of a business or undertaking" indicate the ENTIRE or a SUBSTANTIAL part of a business as opposed to an account of the business only?

 

clarification lang po sir.

 

ty

Edited September 10, 2010 by rocco69

[Immortal666]

Thank you for your prompt responses, good sirs.

[rocco69]

kung kyo po ang tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po magiging argument nyo para maprove yung twin requirements ng awol? or 50-50 ba ang kaso ni employee or medyo favorable kay employer?

 

lamang ang employee sa kaso na ito. unang-una, sinabi na ng Supreme Court na hindi compatible ang abandonment sa pagsasampa ng reklamo sa Labor, i.e. bakit magrereklamo ang isang tao na tinanggal siya kung tutoong inabandona niya ang trabaho niya. In other words, hindi kapanipaniwala ang depensa na ito, lalo pa (ayun na rin sa iyo), na inilabas nila ang mga notice [kuno] nung naisampa na ang reklamo sa Labor.

 

intindihin mo na rin lang na trabaho ng company lawyer na depensahan yung kumpanya, kaya siyempre, ikakatwiran talaga niya na iniwanan ng empleyado yung trabaho niya. sabi ko nga early on, whether maniniwala ang arbiter sa argumentong ito ay ibang kwento na. anyway, alam na ng abugado mo [o ng PAO] ang mga argumento na gagamitin niya para sa Position Paper nyo. good luck!

 

thanks po sa reply sir.

 

based po sa pagreresearch ko, twin requirements daw pag awol or job abandonment:

1. 
    
   
2. the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
   
3. a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship
   

 

i believe yung Return to Work Order ang gagamitin nila para maprove yung 2nd requirement sa awol. but basing sa date kung kelan nila inissue yung notice, 2 months and 11 days ng absent si employee and definitely 2 months after nila marecieve yung complaint ni employee. and please note na inissue yung Return to Work Order sa supposedly 3rd hearing since d sila sumipot sa first 2.

 

kung kyo po ang tatayong lawyer ng employer, anu po magiging argument nyo para maprove yung twin requirements ng awol? or 50-50 ba ang kaso ni employee or medyo favorable kay employer?

 

sensya na po sa mga tanung.

[b_9904]

Ayon sa Art. 286 ng Labor Code:

 

Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. - The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall not reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

 

sa kaso mo, dahil walang openings at the moment para sa inyong managers, pwede kayong ipa-floating muna (Temporary Lay-Off ang tawag ng kumpanya mo sa status na ito). sabi nga ng 286, hindi ito nagte-terminate ng employment, pero dahil di naman pwedeng perpetually kang "floating", pwede lang ang floating status ng maximum of 6months. pag di ka pa nahanapan ng pwesto by that time, considered kang "constructively dismissed" at dapat ka nang mabayaran ng separation pay.

 

Alalahanin mo rin na ang prinsipyong umiiral salabor ay "no work, no pay". dahil di ka naman nagtratrabaho sa panahong floating ka, di ka entitled sa sweldo.

 

in short, tama ang HR ng kumpanya mo, hindi yang kaibigan mo (Note: ang assumption dito, talagang walang pwesto para sa managers at present, para masabi na "bona fide" ang suspension ng operations para sa inyo).

 

 

I think these cases might be relevant to this case.

 

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179512.htm

 

and

 

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127421.htm

 

In summary the cases ruled, thus:

 

"We stress that Article 286 applies only when there is a bona fide suspension of the employer’s operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months. In such a case, there is no termination of employment but only a temporary displacement of employees, albeit the displacement should not exceed six (6) months. The paramount consideration should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put some of its employees temporarily out of work. In security services, the temporary “off-detail” of guards takes place when the security agency’s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the security agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster."

 

Call centers, like that of security agencies, are into outsourcing. Thus, they are dependent on contracts or accounts given to them by other companies. It seems that the BPO company MAY be correct in temporarily laying off its managers when their account ceased to exist. However, I still maintain that the lawyer friend is in the best position to judge the facts of the case.

 

The wall separating the application of Art 286 and constructive illegal dismissal seems to be too thin for comfort.

 

I do have to warn the person asking for the legal advice: Your lawyer friend might be wrong also. some lawyers have the knack for labor law and some do not. In the same way some people can draw and some people could not. So i suggest you consult a LABOR LAWYER.

Edited September 11, 2010 by b_9904

[Arneeious]

May a child file a case of concubinage against his/her father or is it only the mother/wife who can do this? Thank you.

[rocco69]

Ang sabi ng Article 344 ng Revised Penal Code (tsaka ng Section 5, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure):

 

The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

 

lumalabas, yung asawa lang ang pwedeng magreklamo.

 

May a child file a case of concubinage against his/her father or is it only the mother/wife who can do this? Thank you.

[Arneeious]

Ang sabi ng Article 344 ng Revised Penal Code (tsaka ng Section 5, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure):

 

The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

 

lumalabas, yung asawa lang ang pwedeng magreklamo.

 

Ah ok, thanks for the reply. I guess, it implies the children are not offended people, just the wife.

[dark_fiber_guy]

mga attorney... please help naman for alleged simple theft accusation amounting of 60,000 pesos worth of value of different items, pano ba process and dapat gawin? how much ang bail dito? and if pinadalhan nang letter from RTC pasay branch?

 

Need a legal person na makakatulong...please give me contact number and person.

 

Thanks,

[dark_fiber_guy]

mga attorney's for your assistance please...yong brother ko kasi, driver nang taxi at may hinatid sa airport then may naiwan na gamit o bag sa loob nang taxi eh wala naman napansin yong brother ko at madami na sumunod na sumakay, then the foreign passenger taiwanese together with his Filipina GF / Friend file a complain at pasay rtc, nakatangap na ang brother ko nang complain letter "simple theft" (amounting to Php 60,000 yong value nang laman) ang charges nang yari eto nong june 2010.

 

ano pwede gawin? liable ba ang brother ko na wala naman napansin at di alam kung ano naiwan? bakit ganon ka bilis ang pag release nang RTC nang pasay of the case file against my bro?

 

Thanks,