noknok79 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 to all lawyers, can you tell more about RA 8484??? binabayaran ko lagi yung mga Purchases ko, pero minsan, nade-delay makarating sa akin yung statement nat nai-complain ko na yon sa credit card company. ngayon di ko napansin na lumalaki na yung past due ko na kahit full payment ang bayad na ginagawa ko sa mga purchases ko. ngayon for approval daw na i-waive yung lahat ng surcharges & other charges. pero fully paid yung mga purchases ko. ayaw na rin nilang i-cut or i-suspend ang account ko kahit ni-request ko na. kailangan daw bayaran yung mga remaining dues (which is mga charges na lang at wala na rito yung mag purchases ko). kapag di ko na pinansin ba ito, may liabilties pa rin ba ako regarding sa RA 8484??? salamat po mga abogado dito sa MTC. Quote Link to comment
rocco69 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 ang mga krimen sa ilalim ng RA8484 ay ang paggamit ng: a. credit card that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged;b. access device [credit card] that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked, canceled,suspended, or obtained with intent to defraud;c. access device [credit card] that was applied for or issued on account of theuse of falsified document, false information, fictitious identitiesand addresses, or any form of false pretense or misrepresentation; kung hindi ka bumabagsak sa alinman dito, wala kang kaso sa ilalim ng RA8484 ayon na rin sa kwento mo, di ka lang nakabayad sa mga past due mo, altho yung purchases bayad naman. sa aking pananaw, wala ka namang false pretenses,. dahil tutoo naman yung credit card at wala ka namang intensyong manloko ng inaplayan mo ito, di ka liable sa ilalim ng RA8484. kalimitan, pananakot lang ito sa mga may utang. alalahanin mo, kung talagang utang lang, walang kulong. altho wag din namang kalimutan – ang utang ay dapat bayaran. to all lawyers, can you tell more about RA 8484??? binabayaran ko lagi yung mga Purchases ko, pero minsan, nade-delay makarating sa akin yung statement nat nai-complain ko na yon sa credit card company. ngayon di ko napansin na lumalaki na yung past due ko na kahit full payment ang bayad na ginagawa ko sa mga purchases ko. ngayon for approval daw na i-waive yung lahat ng surcharges & other charges. pero fully paid yung mga purchases ko. ayaw na rin nilang i-cut or i-suspend ang account ko kahit ni-request ko na. kailangan daw bayaran yung mga remaining dues (which is mga charges na lang at wala na rito yung mag purchases ko). kapag di ko na pinansin ba ito, may liabilties pa rin ba ako regarding sa RA 8484??? salamat po mga abogado dito sa MTC. Quote Link to comment
noknok79 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 so pwede ko na pong di na pansin yung pangungulit nila? yung mga surge charges lang ang di ko binabayaran, di ko naman kasi problema kung nade-delay dumating sa akin yung statment ko. di rin daw nila pwedeng i-cut yung card ko kasi may past dues? di ko na rin sya ginamit pero ayaw nilang i-cut. at isa pa, di ako nag sign ng application fee dito, kaya palagay ko, wala akong na-break na terms & condition nila dito, binigyan lang nila ako ng card na kahit walang application form na pinirmahan. ang mga krimen sa ilalim ng RA8484 ay ang paggamit ng: a. credit card that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged;b. access device [credit card] that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked, canceled,suspended, or obtained with intent to defraud;c. access device [credit card] that was applied for or issued on account of theuse of falsified document, false information, fictitious identitiesand addresses, or any form of false pretense or misrepresentation; kung hindi ka bumabagsak sa alinman dito, wala kang kaso sa ilalim ng RA8484 ayon na rin sa kwento mo, di ka lang nakabayad sa mga past due mo, altho yung purchases bayad naman. sa aking pananaw, wala ka namang false pretenses,. dahil tutoo naman yung credit card at wala ka namang intensyong manloko ng inaplayan mo ito, di ka liable sa ilalim ng RA8484. kalimitan, pananakot lang ito sa mga may utang. alalahanin mo, kung talagang utang lang, walang kulong. altho wag din namang kalimutan – ang utang ay dapat bayaran. Quote Link to comment
moichi Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 mga sirs, maiba naman po. just need opinions on this. What is the rule or regulation of using the street in front of your property as your exclusive parking space in a subdivision? Can a property owner in a subdivision deny other property owners use of this space because it is "in front of his property"? Any ideas on this sirs? Quote Link to comment
Guest Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Can I file any case against a department head na using his position to make the work environment hostile towards my person considering that logically we are of the same level yet, because of his seniority sya ay napagbibigyan ng top level management at kami ay lagi na lang umuunawa in consideration of my employers. this is a classic case of office politics kaya lang ito si dept head ay lalaki at babae naman ako. Case in point, if I needed some workers to finish a project ay hindi nya papayagan ang mga workers na yun, thus forestall ung projects ko. kaasar pa dun dingding lang pagitan namin. :grr: . Quote Link to comment
danbrown Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Can I file any case against a department head na using his position to make the work environment hostile towards my person considering that logically we are of the same level yet, because of his seniority sya ay napagbibigyan ng top level management at kami ay lagi na lang umuunawa in consideration of my employers. this is a classic case of office politics kaya lang ito si dept head ay lalaki at babae naman ako. Case in point, if I needed some workers to finish a project ay hindi nya papayagan ang mga workers na yun, thus forestall ung projects ko. kaasar pa dun dingding lang pagitan namin. :grr: . get a (crafty) lawyer and sue him for sexual harrasment. don't forget to ask for damages .... hehehe (i'm not a lawyer so don't take this seriously) Quote Link to comment
lomex32 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Attys Kung ikaw ay inerklamo sa Barangay, sa Fiscal sa Husgado etcat one point will it be deemed that the pusuant has already lost interest in the case? Quote Link to comment
dylandark Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Bossing patulong nmn. Kung naalala nyo yung cruise line base sa U.S. o Europe na muntik na lumubog dahil sa tsunami ngayong taon na ito eh empleyado kasi tita ko dun. So dahil nga sa nangyari nag dry dock sila at pinauwi muna yung mga empleyado kahit di pa tapos yung contract pra daw makarecover sa trauma, may binigay pa nga sa kanila na gamot. So ngayon nasa pilipinas na yung tita ko. Tapos the other day sa kasamaang palad, namatay yung tita ko, heart attack, at tingin po ng iba naming kamag anak eh related daw yung nangyari sa kanya dun sa trauma na naranasan nya sa barko. ito po question ko. Ano po ba kung meron mang liability yung employer nya? May mga mahahabol ba sa employer? financially speaking? Under contract pa yung tita ko sa kanila, in fact pinababalik na siya late april. Thank you po sa tutulong. Quote Link to comment
rocco69 Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 sa sistema kasi sa local employment, di sagutin ng employer ang namatay na empleyado. ito ay sinasagot ng "Workmen's Compensation Fund." sa foreign employment, yung kontrata ang importante. Tingnan mo ang kontrata ng tita mo kung ano ang benefits na binibigay sa kanya. baka meron dung insurance. kung may insurance or other death benefits dun, maari kang mag-avail nito, ang kailangan lang dito ay patunayan mo na ang heart attack niya ay dala ng stress mula dun sa tsunami. kung walang benefits sa kontrata, may problema ka, at baka di kayo makapaghabol. Bossing patulong nmn. Kung naalala nyo yung cruise line base sa U.S. o Europe na muntik na lumubog dahil sa tsunami ngayong taon na ito eh empleyado kasi tita ko dun. So dahil nga sa nangyari nag dry dock sila at pinauwi muna yung mga empleyado kahit di pa tapos yung contract pra daw makarecover sa trauma, may binigay pa nga sa kanila na gamot. So ngayon nasa pilipinas na yung tita ko. Tapos the other day sa kasamaang palad, namatay yung tita ko, heart attack, at tingin po ng iba naming kamag anak eh related daw yung nangyari sa kanya dun sa trauma na naranasan nya sa barko. ito po question ko. Ano po ba kung meron mang liability yung employer nya? May mga mahahabol ba sa employer? financially speaking? Under contract pa yung tita ko sa kanila, in fact pinababalik na siya late april. Thank you po sa tutulong. Quote Link to comment
dylandark Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 THANKS A LOT boss Rocco69 Quote Link to comment
AJBredux Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 May insurance to and your tita's family can go after it. PM me and I'll refer you to a friend who specializes in these cases. Bossing patulong nmn. Kung naalala nyo yung cruise line base sa U.S. o Europe na muntik na lumubog dahil sa tsunami ngayong taon na ito eh empleyado kasi tita ko dun. So dahil nga sa nangyari nag dry dock sila at pinauwi muna yung mga empleyado kahit di pa tapos yung contract pra daw makarecover sa trauma, may binigay pa nga sa kanila na gamot. So ngayon nasa pilipinas na yung tita ko. Tapos the other day sa kasamaang palad, namatay yung tita ko, heart attack, at tingin po ng iba naming kamag anak eh related daw yung nangyari sa kanya dun sa trauma na naranasan nya sa barko. ito po question ko. Ano po ba kung meron mang liability yung employer nya? May mga mahahabol ba sa employer? financially speaking? Under contract pa yung tita ko sa kanila, in fact pinababalik na siya late april. Thank you po sa tutulong. Quote Link to comment
moichi Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 mga sirs, maiba naman po. just need opinions on this. What is the rule or regulation of using the street in front of your property as your exclusive parking space in a subdivision? Can a property owner in a subdivision deny other property owners use of this space because it is "in front of his property"? Any ideas on this sirs? up ko lang po Quote Link to comment
aNtipAtiKa Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 My mom has been serving as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) Manager in a cooperative since April 2, 2007. She was given an appointment by the BOD which expires and had to be renewed every six (6) months. Last year no appointment was given/ presented to her. It is in the cooperative’s policy that “Probationer/ Casual Employee rendering two (2) years continuous service will be considered Regular with the Approval of the Board of Directors.”, thus it gave her an understanding that she is already a Regular employee of the cooperative just like other employees who rendered two or more years of continuous service without proper appointment documentation..Last March 23, 2010 during the 23rd General Assembly Meeting, election was conducted. Two were re-elected and one was newly elected as BOD. On March 28, immediately after the first meeting as new set of elected BODs, mom was told verbally that she will no longer act/ serve as OIC Manager. She was informed that the newly elected BOD has moved for the motion to remove her from post. The Board of Directors being responsible for the strategic planning, direction-setting and policy-formulation activities of the cooperatives shall likewise be responsible to review if there are already existing rules and policies concerning the issues to address and the needs to attend to in the cooperative. Whatever decisions they would have to come up to may affect the day to day operation of the cooperative. Part of the Article 42 of the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008 (RA 9520) states “All officers shall serve during good behaviour and shall not be removed except for cause after due hearing. Loss of confidence shall not be a valid ground for removal unless evidenced by acts or omission causing loss of confidence in the honesty and integrity of such officer.” Further, with regards to the Administrative Discipline stated under the Human Resource Management of the cooperative “Without prejudice to the applicable provisions of Coop by-laws, no employee of the coop shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due process”. Under the Philippine Labor and Employment, Due Process means the right of an employee to be notified of the reason for his or her dismissal and, in case of just causes, to be provided the opportunity to defend himself or herself. Just causes refer to wrong doings committed by the employer or employee on the basis of which the aggrieved party may terminate the employer-employee relationship. In a termination for just causes, due process involves the two-notice rule: 1. A notice of intent to dismiss specifying the ground for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his or her side;2. A hearing or conference where the employee is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him or her;3. A notice of dismissal indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the termination.My mom filed a complaint against the BODs to the Cooperative Development Authority copy furnished the National Labor Relations Commission, pursuant to the provision of Section 8, Republic Act No. 6939, authorizing the Cooperative Development Authority to mediate and conciliate disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives.My question, could my mom file court charges against them already kahit wala pa po sagot ang CDA? Please advise us kung ano pa po mga dapat namin gawin and if there are chances that my mom could win this case. Quote Link to comment
rocco69 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 My mom has been serving as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) Manager in a cooperative since April 2, 2007. She was given an appointment by the BOD which expires and had to be renewed every six (6) months. Last year no appointment was given/ presented to her. It is in the cooperative’s policy that “Probationer/ Casual Employee rendering two (2) years continuous service will be considered Regular with the Approval of the Board of Directors.”, thus it gave her an understanding that she is already a Regular employee of the cooperative just like other employees who rendered two or more years of continuous service without proper appointment documentation..Last March 23, 2010 during the 23rd General Assembly Meeting, election was conducted. Two were re-elected and one was newly elected as BOD. On March 28, immediately after the first meeting as new set of elected BODs, mom was told verbally that she will no longer act/ serve as OIC Manager. She was informed that the newly elected BOD has moved for the motion to remove her from post. The Board of Directors being responsible for the strategic planning, direction-setting and policy-formulation activities of the cooperatives shall likewise be responsible to review if there are already existing rules and policies concerning the issues to address and the needs to attend to in the cooperative. Whatever decisions they would have to come up to may affect the day to day operation of the cooperative. Part of the Article 42 of the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008 (RA 9520) states “All officers shall serve during good behaviour and shall not be removed except for cause after due hearing. Loss of confidence shall not be a valid ground for removal unless evidenced by acts or omission causing loss of confidence in the honesty and integrity of such officer.” Further, with regards to the Administrative Discipline stated under the Human Resource Management of the cooperative “Without prejudice to the applicable provisions of Coop by-laws, no employee of the coop shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due process”. Under the Philippine Labor and Employment, Due Process means the right of an employee to be notified of the reason for his or her dismissal and, in case of just causes, to be provided the opportunity to defend himself or herself. Just causes refer to wrong doings committed by the employer or employee on the basis of which the aggrieved party may terminate the employer-employee relationship. In a termination for just causes, due process involves the two-notice rule: 1. A notice of intent to dismiss specifying the ground for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his or her side;2. A hearing or conference where the employee is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him or her;3. A notice of dismissal indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the termination.My mom filed a complaint against the BODs to the Cooperative Development Authority copy furnished the National Labor Relations Commission, pursuant to the provision of Section 8, Republic Act No. 6939, authorizing the Cooperative Development Authority to mediate and conciliate disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives.My question, could my mom file court charges against them already kahit wala pa po sagot ang CDA? Please advise us kung ano pa po mga dapat namin gawin and if there are chances that my mom could win this case. IMHO, lalabas na premature yung kaso sa korte dahil nasa mediation pa with the CDA, hintayion nyo muna kung ano ang mangyayari dun. as for winning the case, depende sa Articles of Cooperation and By-Laws kung ano ang classification ng Coop Manager. tingnan mo muna dun kung ang Manager ba ay appointed at removable by the BOD. Dun kasi magdedepende ang status ng nanay mo. Quote Link to comment
aNtipAtiKa Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 appointed nga po but after two years wala na binigay na notice of appointment sa kanya.. (pls see the first paragraph) 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.