The Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.
Preventive suspension is not a penalty but a disciplinary measure to protect life or property of the employer or the co-workers pending investigation of any alleged infraction committed by the employee. Thus, it is justified only when the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer’s or co-workers’ life or property. When justified, the preventively suspended employee is not entitled to the payment of his salaries and benefits for the period of suspension.
Bribery is penalized under the Revised Penal Code, with distinctions drawn between direct bribery, indirect bribery, and corruption of public officials. Each crime carries its own set of elements, reflecting different ways public trust may be compromised.
Under DOLE Department Order 150-16, Security Guard refers to any person who offers or renders personal service to watch or secure a residence, business establishment, building, compound, any other area or property; or inspects, monitors, or performs body checks or searches of individuals or baggage and other forms of security inspection. Private Security Personnel, on the other hand, refers to natural persons, including private detectives, security consultants and security officers, employed by private security agency or firm, to render security and/or detective services.
Photo from Pexels | Hiren Ranpara The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Read more about Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080)[…]
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception, and thus infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is devoid of probative value. This is because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a rule on negligence, whether the evidence is subjected to cross-examination or not. It is a rule that can stand on its own independently of the character of the evidence presented as hearsay.
The crimes of grave threats, light threats, and other light threats are provided under Articles 282, 283, and 285 of the Revised Penal Code.
According to the case of RONNIE CALUAG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009, in grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition.
Under the old law, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents. The relationship created is exclusively between the adopter and the adopted, and does not extend to the relatives of either.
Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides two (2) remedies for breach of obligations: exact fullfilment and rescind the contract with payment of damages in either case. The rescission provided under said provision is applicable to reciprocal obligations.
