legal Free Legal Advice

[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,

[play_boi]

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)

 

salamat po! may isa pa po sana ako tanung. yung pinsan ko ay hawak pa niya ang sasakyan na sinangla sakanya. hindi nya naman ma i surender dahil ang sabi ng abogado ng nag refer ay ang sasakyan na iyan ang pwede gamitin para ma kuha din yung pera na na invest nya. in short i papa tubos. ang malaking problem is wala naman siya hawak na kasulatan dahil katulad namin nag tiwala lang kami sa mga binitawan nyang salita! pwede po ba niya i pa tubos ang sasakyan at mag negotiate sila ng totoong may ari upang tubusin ang oto? baka kasi maka suhan syang carnaping naman pero tulad ng sabi ko biktima din sya.

 

thanks

[pido_32]

Papuntahin mo brother mo sa PAO sa pasay. Dapat may PI muna yan bago sinampa sa korte, kailangan pag aralan muna record ng case.

 

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,

[dark_fiber_guy]

Papuntahin mo brother mo sa PAO sa pasay. Dapat may PI muna yan bago sinampa sa korte, kailangan pag aralan muna record ng case.

 

 

bro pido,

 

may pinadala first na subpoena sa bro ko from DOJ Office of the City Prosecutor Pasay attached together from Pasay City Police (SPD) Station Investigation & Detective Mngt Section an endorsement letter filling a case of THEFT and take not AT-LARGE naka indicate plus afidavit of complain from the taiwanese complainant, then nag counter affidavit ang brother ko na walang katotohanan and puro kasinungalngan binibintang nang complainant na theft, kung naiwan man nang complanant sa taxi yongbag nya liable ba dapat ang driver?

 

then second na receive nang bro ko yong RESOLUTION charge for SIMPLE THEFT signed from Pasay City Prosecutor.

 

Please advise us what to do or magandang gawin? next step daw is warrant of arrest na sa brother ko? is this harrasment or ganito ba kabilis ang galaw nito? howmuch and bail for this kind of case pag hinuli ang brother ko? may right ba sya tumangi mag pa arrest?

 

Thanks,

[rocco69]

mahirap yang plano nyong ipatubos yung sasakyan. kasi, kung ako ang may-ari, kakasuhan ko talaga ng carnapping ang me hawak ng sasakyan kapag di isinoli. pag ipatubos yung sasakyan sa akin, palalabasin ko sa pulis na ninakaw at ipinapa-ransom ng nagnakaw.

 

salamat po! may isa pa po sana ako tanung. yung pinsan ko ay hawak pa niya ang sasakyan na sinangla sakanya. hindi nya naman ma i surender dahil ang sabi ng abogado ng nag refer ay ang sasakyan na iyan ang pwede gamitin para ma kuha din yung pera na na invest nya. in short i papa tubos. ang malaking problem is wala naman siya hawak na kasulatan dahil katulad namin nag tiwala lang kami sa mga binitawan nyang salita! pwede po ba niya i pa tubos ang sasakyan at mag negotiate sila ng totoong may ari upang tubusin ang oto? baka kasi maka suhan syang carnaping naman pero tulad ng sabi ko biktima din sya.

 

thanks

[cydney_maldita]

mga sirs gusto ko po mag inquire....

 

my cousin is preg and he lived with his bf for several years...

 

-guy doesnt want to give her properties nor to atleast divide them into two

-guy denies the bby in her womb(since may iba n si guy n ka relasyon)

-the guy wants the bby na i abort(para maka takas sa responsibilitites nya)

 

 

---may case po b daw n pwede i file against this person...at yung family nung guy ay nag susuggest din n i abort yung bby including the new gf----sabi kasi ng ibang tao pwede daw abandonment pero nde naman po sila kasal eh..tsaka after sana nya child support since lahat ng properties nya naiwanan sa guy na ine enjoy na nung new live in partner ni lalaki....and sana child support pero may cons kasi dine deny ni lalaki yung bby...eh talagang financially sagad n pinsan ko..ok lang sana if nasa kanya yung properties nya kahit wlang child support and pwede nya i wait na lumabas yung bby to prove n yun yung tatay.shes not after marriage yung obligation lang sana

Edited September 14, 2010 by cydney_maldita