legal Free Legal Advice

[deejay_capslock]

Tax declaration  nor the payment of real property tax does not vest ownership. The same set of documents are also not evidence of ownership.

On 6/5/2022 at 1:24 PM, 2ae said:

Ano po Ang bisa Ng tax Dec na document? Ito po ba ngangunguhulugan sila na ang may ari Ng lupa? Kami Kasi Ang nagtratrabaho sa lupa for many years already. Kami Rin po nagbabayad Ng real property tax nitong lupang sinasaka namin. Wala po kami hinahawakan na doc. 

[deejay_capslock]

On 8/29/2022 at 1:18 PM, jasperlaguitaolegacy said:

tanong lang

 

may unit kaming pinaparent

30sqm lang

ang problema 15 yung tenant

hindi nagpaalam

pinapalusot nila

 

anong pwede gawin?

pwede ba paalisin

wala kamin contract

If wala kayong lease contract then the contract shall be renewed depending on the term of payment ng leasee.  So I would assume in the Philippines its a practice to pay on a monthly basis then the lease contract renews every month. You can ask them to vacate at the end of every contract renewal.

[Fat&Furious]

19 hours ago, deejay_capslock said:

Separation pay is only given to certain scenarios on termination on employment (i.e. Authorized causes under the law). Wala po syang kinalaman sa years of service or tenure ng employee sa isang employer

He was hoping kasi na meron since mandatory retirement sya due to old age. As per HR kasi namin, wala daw talaga, I check with the employee union. It only covers regular employees. Though may advice ang labor arbiter sa kanya na magcompile ng documents para daw tulungan sya. Mejo may gray area kasi dun sa employment status since as if regular sya dahil di naman nabakante.

[Dealdealers]

PAO

[deejay_capslock]

On 9/25/2022 at 8:08 PM, Fat&Furious said:

He was hoping kasi na meron since mandatory retirement sya due to old age. As per HR kasi namin, wala daw talaga, I check with the employee union. It only covers regular employees. Though may advice ang labor arbiter sa kanya na magcompile ng documents para daw tulungan sya. Mejo may gray area kasi dun sa employment status since as if regular sya dahil di naman nabakante.

You may check RA 7641 for retirement pay. This is not considered as separation pay. You should also need to consider the employment status given this is only provided for Regular Employees. I think what the Labor Arbiter would be trying to do is to prove the employment status of the said individual to be as a regular employee, that his service was mandatory and desirable to the business of the Employer. I would suggest to coordinate properly with the said Labor Arbiter

[abebunaw]

On 9/25/2022 at 12:25 AM, deejay_capslock said:

Separation pay is only given to certain scenarios on termination on employment (i.e. Authorized causes under the law). Wala po syang kinalaman sa years of service or tenure ng employee sa isang employer

If I may add, separation pay is given if authorize and just causes were done po.

[abebunaw]

On 9/24/2022 at 10:55 PM, Fat&Furious said:

Sana may makasagot. May kilala kasi ako na magretire na this year. Bale palagi kasi syang project hire since nasa construction kami, pero never po syang nabakante sa trabaho. Nung sinilip ko yung SSS premium contribution nya, bale naka 15years 8 months sa company. Ang tanong ko lang po, meron ba sya makukuha na separation pay/retirement pay considering yung length of service nya kahit hindi sya regular employee? Thanks in advance.

Separation pay-hindi po sir

retirement pay-puwede

basta lang po naka serve at least 5 yrs prior to the retirement.

 

to better assist the said person, I prefer the person to be assisted before the NLRC. Wag na sa DOLE, wala nang jurisdiction yan kasi no EErelationship na kung mag reretire na and beyond 5k yung monetary claim niya sir.

[Dealdealers]

Annulment

[theoneandonlymistressmia]

Is it right for the judge to dismiss a small claims case just because the respondent don't attend the hearings and is now hiding? Given the fact that they gave a new location (in the province) and refuse to receive the court order and an affidavit of refusal was made, is that even the right judgement?

[M Corleone]

1 hour ago, theoneandonlymistressmia said:

Is it right for the judge to dismiss a small claims case just because the respondent don't attend the hearings and is now hiding? Given the fact that they gave a new location (in the province) and refuse to receive the court order and an affidavit of refusal was made, is that even the right judgement?

Yes, the Judge is correct. The Court has no jurisdiction yet over his person. And since under the rules, lack of jurisdiction is one of the grounds for a dismissal of the case, the Judge may motu propio (in his own instance) dismiss the case outright.

[theoneandonlymistressmia]

On 10/18/2022 at 2:30 PM, M Corleone said:

Yes, the Judge is correct. The Court has no jurisdiction yet over his person. And since under the rules, lack of jurisdiction is one of the grounds for a dismissal of the case, the Judge may motu propio (in his own instance) dismiss the case outright.

I see. So it's really easy to become a scammer nowadays. You filed for a case. The respondent don't show up and the case if dismissed. Thank you very much. 

[M Corleone]

21 hours ago, theoneandonlymistressmia said:

I see. So it's really easy to become a scammer nowadays. You filed for a case. The respondent don't show up and the case if dismissed. Thank you very much. 

Unfortunately, yes. That is why scamming is becoming more and more prevalent these days. This has something to do with due process -- giving the respondent/accused the opportunity to answer/rebut all the accusations against him or her. However, absconding doesn't really get them off the hook as it would necessitate them to stay in the shadows, or in common parlance: "maglakad ng wala nang ulo".

Nevertheless, in your case, you are still left with another recourse: assuming that the money you are claiming was on account of fraud, you may opt to file a criminal case for Estafa against the respondent -- thereby allowing you to seek for an arrest warrant against his or her person. At the risk of stating the obvious, however, such course of action would entail additional costs, mostly for legal fees.

[Miggz]

On 10/18/2022 at 1:05 PM, theoneandonlymistressmia said:

Is it right for the judge to dismiss a small claims case just because the respondent don't attend the hearings and is now hiding? Given the fact that they gave a new location (in the province) and refuse to receive the court order and an affidavit of refusal was made, is that even the right judgement?

The court acquires jurisdiction over civil cases by service of summons on the respondent.  Based on these limited facts you provided, there must have been a defect or mistake in the service of the summons, and that is why the court dismissed the case.  This does not prevent you (?) from filing again, since the dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction.

The Rules of Court does provide for remedies when a person who is unwilling to receive summons, or when that person can no longer be found.  I am not sure if there is a similar provision in the Rule on Small Claims.  Consult a lawyer of your own choice if you still wish to pursue the case, or just charge it to experience.  The law is there to give redress to grievances but, by my experience, uphill climb na if you have to resort to the courts.  Prevention is better than cure, ika nga. 

 

[j101]

What cases can be filed against you by the police if you are caught inside a spa or MP?

[Buggy boy]

Regarding po ulit sa baril ano po multa or kaso kung nahulihan ka ng baril na walang permit to carry yung baril license naman?