legal Free Legal Advice

[azayco]

There are news that the wage Order takes effect today, June 14, 2008. On the other hand, I have not seen the wage order published in the papers yet. So wait and see muna. It appears that labor reps are objecting to one provision in the wage order.

[binoe25]

any query about legal problems...? wag kang mahiya.. free legal advise ni Butsoy...

sir, how much would it cost kung magpa file ako ng legal separation?

[Dr Love]

First of all there must be a contract specifying these things you mentioned. As far as I know, yung sa SSS and sa Philhealth lang ang legal requirement that covers househelp. Moreover, any case regarding non-payment of benefits as claimed is filled with the National Labor Relations Commission and not the DOLE itself. If its a legal summon or subpoena, its prudent to look into into just to be sure what is it all about.

 

The financial assistance they gave is already commendable since nothing in our laws labor or otherwise dictates such.

 

Hope that helps.

 

mga bossing kelangan ko ng tulong hehehe

 

yung pinsdan ko may maid sila nagwork na sakanila yun for 6years nanghihinge ng seperation and overtime pay daw kasi late daw minsan magpatulog nanghihinge ng 40,000 as seperation tapus hindi nila bnigyan. instead bingyan lang nila ng 10,000 as financial assistance daw. after few days nagpadala yung sulat sa kanila na nirerequest mag punta sa department of labor. parang ayaw na nila pumunta kasi hindi naman daw sila required sabi ng lawyer nila. tama ba yung ginawa nila? ano bang puede ko iadvice sa kanila?

[Dr Love]

Having a co-maker for training contracts is possible but have not actually seen or heard of one actually having such a provision. Normal practice is the training contract is entered into by the company and the employee directly. Contracts that normally has a co-maker included are those which has direct monetary or service accrual involved like loans. In case of training, wala kasi.

 

I will be amazed if there are companies who indeed include a co-maker provision for training contract and will appreciate to know the name of that company.

 

 

mga masters, follow-up lang po?

 

inquiry with training contracts..... meron na yata mga co-maker for these? is that really enforceable?

[Dr Love]

NCR Wage Order #14 took effect yesterday, June 14, 2008 since it was formally published in newspapers of general circulation last May 30, 2008. Moreover, the actual increase will only be additional P15 on the basic daily salary plus a P5 per day ECOLA effective yesterday making the minimum wage for NCR at P377/day + P 5 ECOLA. By August 28, 2008 however, the P5 ECOLA will be incorporated again with the basic salary and effectively making the minimum wage at P 382/day. You can go to the DOLE website to get a copy of the actual wage order though the Implementing Guidelines are still not available to date.

 

guys. any info on when do we get a P 20.00 increase in our workers salary her ein metro manila? curious lang ako kung kailan.

[complicated8]

It's hard to give an opinion without reading through the contract, but I'll take a shot using general principles.

 

The employer and employee freely entered into a contract. The "co-maker" also voluntarily acceded to the contract (although I guess it is limited to the monetary penalties for breach of contract). The contract is therefore binding on all three persons.

 

The "co-maker" is liable under the contract. He will have to check the extent of his liability. He can be liable immediately and primarily, i.e., the employer can go after him without going after the employee first. He can also be liable only if the employer goes after the employee first and finds out that the employee has no or insufficient property to pay of the monetary penalties. Either way, if the "co-maker" pays up, he can go after the employee for reimbursement.

 

There are a lot of decisions on this arrangement, but I am not sure if there is one directly dealing on an employer-employee set-up. The usual arrangement is that of a loan - lender, borrower, guarantor or surety. Nevertheless, the basics remain the same - there is a binding contract. I do not see any reason why its provisions cannot be enforced.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Thanks! problem here is that the co-maker didn't benefit anything from the contract so how is he/she liable?

what if pinipilit lang ng employer to get a co-maker?

 

Can co-makers refuse to sign this? That's why I'm questioning the enforceability of this contract.

Edited June 15, 2008 by complicated8

[rocco69]

Thanks! problem here is that the co-maker didn't benefit anything from the contract so how is he/she liable?

what if pinipilit lang ng employer to get a co-maker?

 

Can co-makers refuse to sign this? That's why I'm questioning the enforceability of this contract.

 

Kahit walang benefit sa iyo, kung pumirma ka, may liability ka. Kung ayaw mong magka-liability, di ka dapat pumirma.

 

The person being requested to act as co-maker can refuse. Din naman valid kung pinuwersa ang co-maker to sign. Kaya nga lang, kung pumayag siyang pumirma, kahit may agam-agam siya, mabisa pa rin na pagpayag ito at pwedeng i-enforce laban sa kanya ang contract.

[legalavatar]

Kahit walang benefit sa iyo, kung pumirma ka, may liability ka. Kung ayaw mong magka-liability, di ka dapat pumirma.

 

The person being requested to act as co-maker can refuse. Din naman valid kung pinuwersa ang co-maker to sign. Kaya nga lang, kung pumayag siyang pumirma, kahit may agam-agam siya, mabisa pa rin na pagpayag ito at pwedeng i-enforce laban sa kanya ang contract.

 

dude nice signature.... dura lex sed sex.... hehehe... i'm no latin expert pero i think the correct latin translation for "the law is hard but mine is harder" is

 

dura lex, durius est

 

:-) cheers bro... hope i was able to help

[Dr_PepPeR]

dude nice signature.... dura lex sed sex.... hehehe... i'm no latin expert pero i think the correct latin translation for "the law is hard but mine is harder" is

 

dura lex, durius est

 

:-) cheers bro... hope i was able to help

 

Our favorite phrase during my time was "DURA LEX PYREX"

Edited June 15, 2008 by Dr_PepPeR

[Dr_PepPeR]

Having a co-maker for training contracts is possible but have not actually seen or heard of one actually having such a provision. Normal practice is the training contract is entered into by the company and the employee directly. Contracts that normally has a co-maker included are those which has direct monetary or service accrual involved like loans. In case of training, wala kasi.

 

I will be amazed if there are companies who indeed include a co-maker provision for training contract and will appreciate to know the name of that company.

 

I also haven't seen a training contract that has a co-maker requirement. The only reason I can think of is a training contract with a penalty clause. Usually, if there is an employee-employer relationship, and the company agrees to fund the training expenses, the employee availing of the training is required to serve a certain period before he or she can resign. If the employee violates this, then the employee is required to pay for all or part of the expenses for training. In pre-employment contracts, I've heard that some companies require "training" before an employee is accepted. There is a contract which states that if the candidate fails to pass an exam or does not complete the training, the candidate will be required to pay a certain sum to defray the training costs. For both instances, it may be possible that the company requires a co-maker to serve as a guarantor if the trainee does not fulfill the training contract. I guess it would seem manifestly unfair to the guarantor or co-maker, especially if there is no gain derived from it, but I think it would be enforceable. Not that I agree with it, especially if the training is pre-employment, as it can be used unscrupulously as a money-making venture for the company.

[legalavatar]

i agree with everyone here...

 

the term really is not "enforceable" because in the strict legal sense, a contract can both be valid but unenforceable...

 

yes the employer can sue you... the contract is valid....

 

if the co-maker signed with you, he can be sued as well....

 

i have several clients whose contracts have similar features..... i suggest you honor the contract... cheers!

[complicated8]

so if you cannot make a co-maker sign because he/she doesn't want to be liable, what can you do?

 

I think ito yung hindi alam ng mga prospective employees eh. gusto nila yung job pero does the employer have the right to dismiss you if you cannot have a co-maker to sign the contract?

[huntforredoctober]

Seeking expert advice, got my girlfriend pregnant, problem is she's still married though she's living independently from her husband, we don't want to abort the child since its against our values. I read that adultery cases are punishable with imprisonment. Also read that there's a clause that as long as we don't cohabit I shouldn't worry on spending time in jail. Is this true? Also another concern is what becomes of her since as far as what I have read, the law is very strict on women when it comes to this subject. Hope someone can enlighten me on this and provide guidance regarding the issue. Thanks.

[legalavatar]

Seeking expert advice, got my girlfriend pregnant, problem is she's still married though she's living independently from her husband, we don't want to abort the child since its against our values. I read that adultery cases are punishable with imprisonment. Also read that there's a clause that as long as we don't cohabit I shouldn't worry on spending time in jail. Is this true? Also another concern is what becomes of her since as far as what I have read, the law is very strict on women when it comes to this subject. Hope someone can enlighten me on this and provide guidance regarding the issue. Thanks.

 

If your girlfriend and his husband are in good terms, you do not have a problem. Only the husband can file an adultery case and if he does not want to file, then your worries are over. If your girlfriend and her husband have some form of arrangement to get on with their lives separately, living freely to enter into relationships with others, then this may be construed as consent which likewise precludes the husband from filing a criminal case. While such arrangements are really prohibited and void, they are valid defenses in adultery suits. Of course, you have to prove that the arrangement exists.

 

In adultery, one act of intercourse with a married women, with knowledge of such fact, is enough to constitute the crime of adultery. Cohabitation is only an issue in concubinage, but never in adultery. You may have misread the Penal Code or read the wrong provision.

 

Yes the law is strict on women when it comes to adultery. That's what we get for having an almost all-male cast of legislators. But mind you, you also stand to be liable with your girlfriend for the crime, so make sure that your girlfriend and her husband are in good terms or at the very least, have some form of arrangement in their separation.

 

FYI, separation de facto only lowers the penalty for adultery.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 17, 2008 by legalavatar

[Dr_PepPeR]

so if you cannot make a co-maker sign because he/she doesn't want to be liable, what can you do?

 

I think ito yung hindi alam ng mga prospective employees eh. gusto nila yung job pero does the employer have the right to dismiss you if you cannot have a co-maker to sign the contract?

 

You can't force someone to be your guarantor, and personally I avoid being a co-maker. In short, you can't do anything if you cannot convince someone to be a co-maker. As to prospective employees, they have a choice. Either they get a co-maker or they look for employment elsewhere. Is it fair? Maybe not but that's the way life goes.