NOTE: THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, I WANT TO SHARE TO THIS TO YOU GUYS. i DO HOPE YOU FIND IT INTERESTING TOO!

source: http://www.usls.edu.ph/ralph/BarTips/Stats.BarTrivia.html

Bar Exam Statistics

by Ralph A. Sarmiento

Philippine Bar Exams Trivia

1st Bar Exams:

• 1901 with 13 examinees.

Highest Grade of All Time:

• 96.7 in the 1954 Bar Exams by Florenz Regalado of San Beda College.

2nd Highest Grade of All Time:

• 95.95 in the 1954 Bar Exams by Renato L. de la Fuente of San Beda College.

3rd Highest Grade of All Time:

• 95.85 in the 1949 Bar Exams by Anacleto C. Mañgaser of the Philippine Law School (PLS).

4th Highest Grade of All Time:

• 95.5 held by Manuel G. Montecillo of Far Eastern University (FEU) in the 1948 Bar Exams & Antonio R. Quintos of Ateneo de Manila University in the 1954 Bar Exams.

5th Highest Grade of All Time:

• 95.3 in the 1944 Bar Exams held by Jovito R. Salonga of the University of the Philippines & Jose W. Diokno, who did not finish his law studies.

Bar Topnotchers (1st Placers) to become Presidents of the Philippines:

• Manuel A. Roxas (University of the Philippines), 1913 Bar Exams with a grade of 92.

• Diosdado P. Macapagal of the University of Sto. Tomas, 1936 with a grade of 89.85

• Ferdinand E. Marcos of the University of the Philippines, 1939 with a grade of 92.35

Other Bar Topnotchers to become Presidents of the Philippines:

• Sergio S. Osmeña (University of Santo Tomas), 2nd Place – 1903 Bar Exams

• Manuel L. Quezon, (University of Santo Tomas), 4th Place – 1903 Bar Exams

• Elpidio R. Quirino (University of the Philippines), 2nd Place – 1915 Bar

• Carlos P. Garcia (Philippine Law School), 6th Place – 1923 Bar

Facts about the Jose W. Diokno Legend:

• Diokno was born on February 26, 1922.

• Diokno earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Commerce Summa Cum Laude in 1940 at De La Salle College (now De La Salle University).

• He took the CPA Board Exam in 1940 while he was on his second year in law school and placed No. 1.

• In 1944, he petitioned the Supreme Court to take the Bar Exams without a law degree.

• The Supreme Court granted his petition and he took the Bar Exams in 1944 and tied with the Class Valedictorian of U.P. for the 1st Place with a grade of 95.3.

• Diokno is perhaps the only one who placed 1st in both the CPA board exams & the Bar Exams.

Facts about the Claro M. Recto Legend:

• Recto was born on February 8, 1890 at Tiaong, Tayabas (now Quezon Province).

• He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Ateneo de Manila where his grades were all perfect (1.0), except only for one 1.3. He was conferred by Ateneo with Maxima Cum Laude honors (highest honors conferred by Ateneo).

• He took the Bar Exams in 1913 while he was still in his senior year in law school at the University of Santo Tomas – and FLUNKED.

• He finished his law degree in 1913, Class Valedictorian, University of Santo Tomas.

• The 1913 Bar Exams marked the first time that the test questions in Civil Procedure were in English, a new language in which Recto could not express himself very well.

• Justice Fischer, the examiner in Civil Procedure, also noted that Recto’s handwriting was very difficult to understand.

• Justice Fischer gave Recto a grade of 41 which automatically disqualified him.

• Recto took the Bar Exams again in 1914 and passed. However, I have not yet seen any official record in my research whether he placed in the Bar Exams of 1914. But it appears that Recto could not have been No. 1 in the 1914 Bar because the official records of the Supreme Court list Manuel Goyena as the no. 1 of that year.

• After passing, Recto wrote two books on Civil Procedure.

• When Recto studied in Ateneo and UST, the medium of instruction was Spanish. Manuel Roxas, on the other hand, UP’s Class Valedictorian who topped the 1913 Bar Exams was a product of the US public school system and had spent a year in Hong Kong to better equip himself with American English before taking the Bar.

Facts about the Ferdinand E. Marcos Legend:

• Marcos was born on September 11, 1917.

• In college, Marcos’ principal interest was the .22-caliber college pistol team.

• On September 20, 1935, Julio Nalundasan was at home celebrating that day’s Congressional election victory over Mariano Marcos when he was shot and killed with a .22-caliber bullet fired by the 18-year-old Marcos.

• On December 13, 1938, Marcos was arrested for Nalundasan’s murder but he successfully petitioned for release on bail, allowing him to complete his law degree from the University of the Philippines.

• In 1939, Marcos was found guilty and sentence to a minimum of 10 years in prison.

• Jailed, Marcos spent six months writing his own 830-page appeal while reviewing for the Bar Exams at the same time.

• Marcos posted bail to take the 1939 Bar Exams and passed with scores so high he was suspected of cheating.

• Legends say that his unofficial Grade was 98.5 and so he was summoned to appear before the Supreme Court en banc for an oral re-examination, after which his official grade was released as 92.35.

• Marcos is the only Bar candidate who was called by the Supreme Court for an oral re-examinations.

• In 1940, Marcos orally argued his own case in front of Supreme Court Justice Jose P. Laurel and on October 22, 1940, he was acquitted of the charge of murder and forthwith liberated from imprisonment.

• The next day, he returned to the Supreme Court where he was administered his oath as a lawyer.

1st woman to Top the Bar (1st Place):

• Tecla San Andres-Ziga of the University of the Philippines placed No. 1 in the Bar Exams of 1930 with a grade of 89.4. She served as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines from 1963 to 1969.

2nd woman to Top the Bar (1st Place):

• Cecilia Munoz-Palma (University of the Philippines) became the 2nd woman to place No. 1 in the Bar Exams in 1937 with a grade of 92.6. She later became the 1st woman Supreme Court Justice in 1973 and the 1st female President of a constitutional commission in 1986.

Bar Flunker who Placed 1st on his Second Take:

• Francisco Noel R. Fernandez (University of the Philippines) failed in the 1993 Bar Exams but placed No. 1 in the 1994 Bar Exams with a grade of 89.2.

1st Aeta Lawyer

• Wayda Cosme (Harvardian Colleges) passed the Bar Exam in 2001 to become the 1st Aeta Lawyer.

WELCOME TO DAKAK PARK AND BEACH RESORT…

When My baboi went home last month, we went to DAKAK Park and Beach resort to enjoy his short vacation. The resort is a 15-20 minute ride from the town proper, depending on your mode of transportation. While the road is under renovation coz’ its currently widened by the Philippine Government as a national road, it didn’t stop us from taking an adventure of a lifetime, one we will never forget.

When we arrived at the resort, we paid 200.00 php entrance fee which is inclusive of a snack of our choice at the lumba-lumba. But since it was almost 12 at that time, we added 75.00 php additional for lunch, which was worth it. So all in all, it cost us 275.00 php to get inside the resort and enjoi the beach. But there is more to Dakak than its white sand beach.

The resort is huge and could cater to more than a thousand guest. It has first class facilities that one can enjoy. For those who loves sports, they have a bowling center, a golf course, a basketball court, volleyball at the beach and one could also go horse back riding. Not to mention the number of pools and outdoor activities for everyone.

The view of the beach is breathtaking and there are a lot of beach activities one can avail of at the aquasports center. To mention a few, one can go jet skiing or have fun riding the banana boat or an island tour to aliquay or selinog (twin islands, which are part of Dapitan City).

Although we only enjoyed a few of its facilities, hmmmmm the beach and the tour around the resort, still basking in the sun with my baboi and neice in the shores of Dakak is a one in a lifetime experience i will never forget.

These are only a few that Dapitan City can offer to its local and foreign tourist because there is more to dapitan than meets the eye.

Visit Dapitan and enjoi nature at its fullest.

Rule 128

 Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent fats and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings. It is fundamentally a procedural law. (judicial definition). Under the rules of court, evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. 

Fact in dispute – refers to ultimate fact, on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense. It refers to facts which the expected evidence will support or prove during the trial. 

Factum probandum – ultimate facts or the facts in issue or to be proved.Factum probans – evidentiary facts, which are necessary for the determination of the ultimate facts; they are the premises on which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.  

Kinds of Evidence:

1. Real Evidence – knowledge acquired by the court from inspection or by direct self-perception or autopsy of the evidence. It refers to the thing or fact or material or corporate object which can be viewed or inspected by the court, which a party may present as evidence.
2. Circumstantial Evidence – it is evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue.of
3. Testimonial Evidence – It refers to oral evidence or that which testifies in court.

Other classification of evidence:

1. Relevant Evidence
2. Competent Evidence
3. Material Evidence
4. Direct Evidence
5. Positive and Negative Evidence
6. Physical Evidence
7. Evidence Aliunde
8. Rebuttal Evidence
9. Expert Evidence
10. Primary and Secondary Evidence
11. Conclusive Evidence
12. Cumulative Evidence
13. Corroborative Evidence
14. Rebuttal Evidence
15. Self-serving Evidence
16. Hearsay Evidence

 Hierarchy of Evidentiary Rules

1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – required for conviction of an accused in a criminal case, means that which is logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record of the moral certainty of the guilt of the accused or that degree of proof, which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
2. Clear and Convincing Evidence – refers to that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established
3. Preponderance of Evidence – is the degree of evidence required in civil cases, which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it e.g greater weight of credible witness or greater weight of evidence.
4. Substantial Evidence – is that which is required to reach a conclusion in administrative proceedings or to establish a fact before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies or is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence or record.
5. Prima facie evidence – is that proof which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction.

 Rules of evidence shall not apply to the following:

1. Election Cases
2. Land Registration
3. Cadastral, naturalization and insolvency  proceedings
4. Other cases not provided for. 

Admissibility of Evidence:

1. Relevant or Material
2. Competent

 Evidence on Collateral Matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue e.g circumstantial facts, facts other than those facts in issue. Evidence may be admissible for two or more purposes, and the offeror may offer it for such purpose. But he must be certain that the evidence or document is admissible for all such purposes, for if the evidence is admissible only for one purpose and the same is not admissible for the other purposes, the evidence is totally rejected for any purpose.

Rule 129

 Judicial Notice; when Mandatory:

1. The existence and territorial extent of states
2. The states political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality
3. The law of Nations
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals.
5. The political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines.
6. The laws of nature
7. The measure of time
8. The geographical divisions of the country

 Judicial Notice; when discretionary, generally:

1. Matters which are of public knowledge
2. Those which are of unquestionable demonstration or
3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

 Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility

Object Evidence – are those addressed to the senses of the court. WHen an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it amy be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

Three SOurces of Evidence:

1.  Circumstantial Evidence
2. Testimonial Evidence
3. Real Evidence

 Autoptic Proference – this is refers to Real Evidence,  which is the inspection by the court of a thing itself and its conditions to enable the court to effectively exercise its judicial power of receiving and weighing the evidence.

Fundamentals for admissibility of sound record recording where admissible, are the following:

1. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony
2. A showing that the operator of the device was competent
3. Establishment of authenticity and correctness of recording
4. A showing that changes, additions or deletions have not been made
5. A showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording
6. Identification of teh Speakers
7. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

 Authentication made by a witness:

1. That he personally recorded the conversation
2. That the tape played in court was the one he recorded
3. That the voices on the tape are those of the persons such as claimed to belong.

 Documentary Evidence – consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

1. Best Evidence Rule – Original documents must be produced when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document except –

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce if after reasonable notice.
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without a great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public place.

 Best Evidence Rule does apply in the following:

1. Where a party seeks to prove a fact indepently of any thing, in which case he may do so by oral testimony.
2. Where the essential fact to be proved is neither the existence nor the contents of the writing, but the existence of an independent fact, to whcih the writing is merely collateral or incidental.
3. Where what is sought to be proven is the non-existence of an entry in a record book, which may be established by testimonial evidence.

 Parole Evidence RUle – is a Rule of evidence which states that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

The rule does not apply where the document does not contain the terms of the agreement, like a receipt of money, in which case parole evidence is admissible.  It is also admissible where the document is not a contract embodying contractual obligations between parties, but relates to the legitimacy of persons asserting status as legitimate children of a decedent.

After viewing the very controversial blog of brial gorrell (www.delfindjmontano.blogspot.com) i made some research regarding ethical norms with the use of the internet and this article i have found on thi site http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1087.txt which posts…

Ethics and the Internet

Status of this Memo

   This memo is a statement of policy by the Internet Activities Board

   (IAB) concerning the proper use of the resources of the Internet.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Introduction

At great human and economic cost, resources drawn from the U.S. Government, industry and the academic community have been assembled into a collection of interconnected networks called the Internet. Begun as a vehicle for experimental network research in the mid- 1970's, the Internet has become an important national infrastructure supporting an increasingly widespread, multi-disciplinary community of researchers ranging, inter alia, from computer scientists and electrical engineers to mathematicians, physicists, medical researchers, chemists, astronomers and space scientists.

   As is true of other common infrastructures (e.g., roads, water

   Reservoirs and delivery systems, and the power generation and

   distribution network), there is widespread dependence on the Internet

   by its users for the support of day-to-day research activities.

   The reliable operation of the Internet and the responsible use of its

   resources is of common interest and concern for its users, operators

   and sponsors.  Recent events involving the hosts on the Internet and

   in similar network infrastructures underscore the need to reiterate

   the professional responsibility every Internet user bears to

   colleagues and to the sponsors of the system.  Many of the Internet

   resources are provided by the U.S. Government.  Abuse of the system

   thus becomes a Federal matter above and beyond simple professional

   ethics.

IAB Statement of Policy

   The Internet is a national facility whose utility is largely a

   consequence of its wide availability and accessibility.

   Irresponsible use of this critical resource poses an enormous threat

   to its continued availability to the technical community.

   The U.S. Government sponsors of this system have a fiduciary

   responsibility to the public to allocate government resources wisely

   and effectively.  Justification for the support of this system

   suffers when highly disruptive abuses occur.  Access to and use of

   the Internet is a privilege and should be treated as such by all

   users of this system.

   The IAB strongly endorses the view of the Division Advisory Panel of

   the National Science Foundation Division of Network, Communications

   Research and Infrastructure which, in paraphrase, characterized as

   unethical and unacceptable any activity which purposely:

      (a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of the

          Internet,

      (b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,

      (c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such

          actions,

      (d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information,

   and/or

      (e) compromises the privacy of users.

   The Internet exists in the general research milieu.  Portions of it

   continue to be used to support research and experimentation on

   networking.  Because experimentation on the Internet has the

   potential to affect all of its components and users, researchers have

   the responsibility to exercise great caution in the conduct of their

   work.  Negligence in the conduct of Internet-wide experiments is both

   irresponsible and unacceptable.

   The IAB plans to take whatever actions it can, in concert with

   Federal agencies and other interested parties, to identify and to set

   up technical and procedural mechanisms to make the Internet more

   resistant to disruption.  Such security, however, may be extremely

   expensive and may be counterproductive if it inhibits the free flow

   of information which makes the Internet so valuable.  In the final

   analysis, the health and well-being of the Internet is the

   responsibility of its users who must, uniformly, guard against abuses

   which disrupt the system and threaten its long-term viability.

i always cry everytime i get to see this video.they are just a love couple and the guy…hmmm i love it when he cries.hehehe this is the reason why i want to share this with you.hope you like it.

here is the lyric of the song leah sang…if i will marry, id have this song sang.

In a while, in a word,

Every moment now returns.

For a while, seen or heard,

How each memory softly burns.

Facing you who brings me new tomorrows,

I thank God for yesterdays,

How they led me to this very hour,

How they led me to this place…

Every touch, every smile,

You have given me in care.

Keep in heart, always I’ll,

Now be treasuring everywhere.

And if life should come to just one question,

Do I hold this moment true?

No trace of sadness,

Always with gladness…

‘I DO…’

(instrumental)

Now a song that speaks of now and ever,

Beckons me to someone new,

Unexpected, unexplored, unseen,

Filled with promise coming through.

In a while, in a word,

You and I forever change,

Love so clear, never blurred,

Has me feeling wondrous, strange,

And if life should come to just one question,

Do I face each moment true?

No trace of sadness, always with gladness,

‘I DO…’

Never with sadness…

Always with gladness…

‘I…DO….’

TITLE: Ruben L. Andrada, Bernaldo V. delos Santos,

                        Joven M. Pabustan, Filamer Alfonso, Vicente A.

                        Mantala, Jr., Harvey D. Cayetano, and Jovencio L.

                        Poblete, petitioners.

                        Versus

                        National Labor Relations Commission, Subic Legend

                        Resorts and Casino, Inc., and/or Mr. Hwa Puay,

                        Ms. Flordeliza Maria Reyes Rayel, and its Corporate

                        Officers, respondents.

                        December 28, 2007

FACTS:

            The petitioners in this case, whose names appear in the title, are employees of Subic legend Resorts and Casino, Inc. who were hired on various dates from 1995 up to 1997 working as architects, draftsmen, operators, engineers, and surveyors in the Project Development Division on various projects. Herein respondents Mr. Hwa Puay and Ms. Flordeliza Maria Reyes Rayel are impleaded in this case in their official capacities as officers of said resort and casino.

            On January 6, 1998, Subic Legend Resorts and Casino, Inc. decided to retrench and terminate the employment of some thirty four (34) employees including herein petitioners sending notice of such action to the Department of Labor and Employment. Legend has undertaken this action on the strength of the updated status report of its Project Development Division, as follows:

1.      shelving of the condotel project until economic conditions in the Philippines improve.

2.      completion of the temporary casino in Cubi by Mid-February 1998

3.      subcontracting the super structure work of Grand Legend to a third party

4.      completion of the rectification work at the Legenda hotel

5.      completion of the temporary casino in Cubi

6.      abolition of the Personnel and Administrative department of the Project Development division and transfer of its function back to Legend’s Human Resource Department.

For the same reasons, Legend sent to the 34 employees the notices of retrenchment and offering them retrenchment options. After they have chosen their options they signed a quitclaim reserving the right to sue should their separation benefits not be settled by January 30, 2008.

On that same day, Labor and Employment Center of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority advertised that Legend International Resorts, Inc. was in need of employees for the positions which were very much similar to those vacated by the petitioners.

On March 3, 1998, fourteen (14) of the 34 retrenched employees filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga a complaint for illegal dismissal based on the advertisement made by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority saying that Legend have created positions similar to those which they have vacated. Legend however, invoked management prerogatives.

The Labor Arbiter decided that the petitioners were illegally dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of documents showing that legend had suffered actual losses or that there were redundancy of positions as occupied by the petitioners. Legend then appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations which reversed the decision.

Herein petitioners appealed the NLRC decision to the Court of Appeals. The latter however sustained the CA’s ruling and held that the employees were validly terminated from employment due to redundancy and not retrenchment.  Aggrieved with the CA’s decision, the above petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

            Whether or not the complainants were illegally dismissed? Corollary, was there a valid retrenchment?

COURT RULING:

            The Supreme Court favors the petitioners.

            It held that a company’s prerogative is not absolute. It cannot exercise its prerogative in a cruel, repressive, or despotic manner. In the case of Ariola vs. Philex Mining Corporation, the following are requirements of a valid retrenchment:

1.      It is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer

2.      The employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment

3.      The employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is highter.

The court further added that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and retained among the employees and that the retrenchment  must be undertaken in good faith.

Supreme Court held that in the instant case, Legend glaringly failed to show its financial conditions prior to and at the time it enforced its retrenchment program. Furthermore, it failed to submit audited financial statements regarding its alleged financial losses. Thus, the retrenchment was illegal.

On the issue of redundancy, Supreme Court held that Legend failed to establish it as such. It further explains that retrenchment and redundancy are two different concepts. The difference of which were clearly elaborated in the case of Sebuguero vs. NLRC. To simply put it, redundancy according to the Supreme Court exists when the number of employees is in excess of what is reasonably necessary to operate the business.

Thus, the Supreme Court finally held, that the basis for retrenchment was not established by substantial evidence and it also ruled that Legend failed to establish by the same quantum of proof the fact of redundancy; hence the petitioners’ termination from employment was illegal.

TITLE: Ruben L. Andrada, Bernaldo V. delos Santos,

                        Joven M. Pabustan, Filamer Alfonso, Vicente A.

                        Mantala, Jr., Harvey D. Cayetano, and Jovencio L.

                        Poblete, petitioners.

                        Versus

                        National Labor Relations Commission, Subic Legend

                        Resorts and Casino, Inc., and/or Mr. Hwa Puay,

                        Ms. Flordeliza Maria Reyes Rayel, and its Corporate

                        Officers, respondents.

                        December 28, 2007

FACTS:

            The petitioners in this case, whose names appear in the title, are employees of Subic legend Resorts and Casino, Inc. who were hired on various dates from 1995 up to 1997 working as architects, draftsmen, operators, engineers, and surveyors in the Project Development Division on various projects. Herein respondents Mr. Hwa Puay and Ms. Flordeliza Maria Reyes Rayel are impleaded in this case in their official capacities as officers of said resort and casino.

            On January 6, 1998, Subic Legend Resorts and Casino, Inc. decided to retrench and terminate the employment of some thirty four (34) employees including herein petitioners sending notice of such action to the Department of Labor and Employment. Legend has undertaken this action on the strength of the updated status report of its Project Development Division, as follows:

1.      shelving of the condotel project until economic conditions in the Philippines improve.

2.      completion of the temporary casino in Cubi by Mid-February 1998

3.      subcontracting the super structure work of Grand Legend to a third party

4.      completion of the rectification work at the Legenda hotel

5.      completion of the temporary casino in Cubi

6.      abolition of the Personnel and Administrative department of the Project Development division and transfer of its function back to Legend’s Human Resource Department.

For the same reasons, Legend sent to the 34 employees the notices of retrenchment and offering them retrenchment options. After they have chosen their options they signed a quitclaim reserving the right to sue should their separation benefits not be settled by January 30, 2008.

On that same day, Labor and Employment Center of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority advertised that Legend International Resorts, Inc. was in need of employees for the positions which were very much similar to those vacated by the petitioners.

On March 3, 1998, fourteen (14) of the 34 retrenched employees filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga a complaint for illegal dismissal based on the advertisement made by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority saying that Legend have created positions similar to those which they have vacated. Legend however, invoked management prerogatives.

The Labor Arbiter decided that the petitioners were illegally dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of documents showing that legend had suffered actual losses or that there were redundancy of positions as occupied by the petitioners. Legend then appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations which reversed the decision.

Herein petitioners appealed the NLRC decision to the Court of Appeals. The latter however sustained the CA’s ruling and held that the employees were validly terminated from employment due to redundancy and not retrenchment.  Aggrieved with the CA’s decision, the above petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

            Whether or not the complainants were illegally dismissed? Corollary, was there a valid retrenchment?

COURT RULING:

            The Supreme Court favors the petitioners.

            It held that a company’s prerogative is not absolute. It cannot exercise its prerogative in a cruel, repressive, or despotic manner. In the case of Ariola vs. Philex Mining Corporation, the following are requirements of a valid retrenchment:

1.      It is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer

2.      The employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment

3.      The employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is highter.

The court further added that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and retained among the employees and that the retrenchment  must be undertaken in good faith.

Supreme Court held that in the instant case, Legend glaringly failed to show its financial conditions prior to and at the time it enforced its retrenchment program. Furthermore, it failed to submit audited financial statements regarding its alleged financial losses. Thus, the retrenchment was illegal.

On the issue of redundancy, Supreme Court held that Legend failed to establish it as such. It further explains that retrenchment and redundancy are two different concepts. The difference of which were clearly elaborated in the case of Sebuguero vs. NLRC. To simply put it, redundancy according to the Supreme Court exists when the number of employees is in excess of what is reasonably necessary to operate the business.

Thus, the Supreme Court finally held, that the basis for retrenchment was not established by substantial evidence and it also ruled that Legend failed to establish by the same quantum of proof the fact of redundancy; hence the petitioners’ termination from employment was illegal.

wHen i Hear this song at BJ’s Loft i cant help myself…id go up in the stage and do a pole dance hahaha with a friend ofcourse, i definitely can’t do it alone nuh! am not that hmmmm confident?even if i had bottles of rH in my tummy and mind hahaha

“Tikling is hot as hell when pissed off.”

Yesterday, I decided to visit my sister at talisay (a barangay in Dapitan) to watch Marimar. Since I had no motorcycle I went there by “sikad-sikad” (it’s an old means of transportation here in our hometown.) It was already dark then and on the way to their house are creepy acacia and balete trees that gave me Goosebumps. I could only imagine myself, after watching the telenovelas, walking alone in the dark road where the only lights I could see are those coming from houses distantly situated from it. And I have to pass by an elementary school where stories of ghost have been told by old people in the small community.

Creepy I thought.

Marimar is about to end, that is why I can’t miss the few more days. Actually, I’m not really a fan but somehow there’s something in it that interest me and the rest of the Filipinos who watches it. That’s why I had to watch. When it was about to end, my niece asked me “to unsa imu sakyan pagpa-uli” “maglakaw” I answered. She then tried to scare me about the “wak-wak”(a human eating human – hehehe e.g mananggal and the likes).

It was already past eleven o’clock and I have to go home. I bid good bye to my sister and my niece who was still watching TV when I left. The road was very dark. Everything was so quiet except the creepy noises the insects are making indistinctly. My heart was starting to beat faster as I walked faster. I just prayed our father the whole time I walked, especially when I passed by the elementary school and when my hairs started to react in horror “literally nanindog ako buhok.” Then the second thing that scared the hell out of me was the thought that someone might be following me or might be behind the trees hiding, preparing to attack me anytime. These thoughts almost made me faint. Laughs. It was a long walk, I tell you. And every step I make was as big as a galloping horse. I only found relief when I finally saw a light at the intersection and heard people talking at the small payag.

I will never walk alone at night in that street ever again in my entire life, I swore to my grave. Laughs.

But the night never ended there, in fact it was just starting.

Since no sikad-sikad was available at that late a night, nor where there pedicabs, I continued my walk. I was about to pass by young lads and gals who were sitting at the sidewalk near the bridge when I heard them mocking me. At first, one girl said “bayot.” (a cebuano term/word for gay or homosexual). I didn’t really bothered them. But when I passed by them, only a few meters away from them, they started to sing in chorus the song “hindi ako bakla” (I AM NOT GAY).

THIS TIME I DIDNT LET IT PASS.

I went back and introduced myself. This is how it went. TSU here refers to tanga! Stupid! Uneducated.

Tikling: Hi, I heard you were having fun? My name is tikling. (Of course I gave them my real nickname.) And you are?

TSU: No comment.

Tikling: Oh by the way, where are you guys studying?

TSU: State College (referring to Jose Rizal Memorial State College).

Tikling: Oh, I thought you were high school students. You were acting like one kasi eh. Even if you won’t ask, I’d like to let you know who I am so that you won’t only judge me by the way I walk.

TSU: Silent and stupid. They or she made no comment at all after my straight forward introduction..

Tikling: By the way, I am a graduate of BBA-Management in a prestigious university in Dumaguete, Silliman University. Have you heard of it? And right now, I’m a third year law student in ABC. I’m already working too and earning money for myself.

TSU: aw.

Tikling: You see, when I was in elementary my teachers already thought me respect. Respect for oneself and respect for other people and their differences. I’ve learned not to judge people by the way they look nor by the way they act or move.

TSU: still silent. perhaps Thinking. (And I hoped they understood me).

Tikling: Hey, if you want me to think the way you do, which is judging people by the way they look or act, then I believe you wouldn’t mind me calling you BORIKAT! (a whore) because you really look like one in my own opinion. You’re staying outside this late with these boys, when you should be studying and praying that someday you’d pass your course and find a job.

TSU: Flushed. Embarrassed and confused. Said nothing the whole time. I was so fast kasi.

Tikling: My professors at the college of law never showed disrespect to me, nor have they insulted me because of who I am. If they did judge me, I believe they kept it to themselves. And that is what you should have done. You should have kept your judgment to yourself because you have no right at all, at this point in your life to judge me or other people at that. You have not achieved anything yet compared to me. If I’m like this (describing the my status) your just as small as this (showing her, her status with the use of my fingers.)

TSU: no words coming from her mouth, nothing at all.

Tikling: Then before I left I told them I pity you and your parents and the school where you are studying. If you haven’t learned the moral values of life, you have learned nothing at all. You should go back to your homes and your elementary schools where everything started. And the next time you look at other people, think twice before judging them because you just don’t know who you’re dealing with. When you see me walking these streets, call me by my name and I will, with a great smile, respond.

I don’t know if she or they did understand everything that I have said. At that point, I don’t care.

Then I left. However, a few meters away from them I heard them laugh. But I thought it was an act of hiding the embarrassment that they felt because I am sure, I engraved in their minds the lessons which they will never forget. If ever they did, their just garbage in this society which my father (the chief of office in the General Services Office) will gladly sweep up and dump them somewhere where trash and garbage belong. Good luck to them and god bless.

These are photos of me and some of my friends at the coolest bar in Dapitan City, the BJ’s Loft. It offers a unique ambiance and has the latest DiscoTEch. You’d keep on coming back once you try hanging out at the Loft. It is owned by Bullet Jalosjos, thus the name BJ’s Loft.