ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Rescission of Insurance Contracts and Refund of Premiums

A concealment, whether intentional or unintentional, entitled the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. (Section 27, Insurance Code)

An intentional and fraudulent omission on the part of one insured, to communicate information of matters proving or tending to prove the falsity of a warranty, entitled the insurer to rescind. (Section 29, Insurance Code)

If a representation is false in a material point, whether affirmative or promissory, the injured party is entitled to rescind the contract from the time when the representation becomes false. (Section 45, Insurance Code)

THE SUPREME COURT SAYS: A cashier’s inability to safeguard and account for missing cash is a sufficient cause for dismissal

A cashier who, through carelessness, lost a document evidencing a cash receipt, and then wilfully chose not to record the excess cash as miscellaneous income and instead took it home and spent it on herself, and later repeatedly denied or concealed the cash overage when confronted, deserves to be dismissed.
It would be most unfair to require an employer to continue employing as its cashier a person whom it reasonably believes is no longer capable of giving full and wholehearted trustworthiness in the stewardship of company funds.

(P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. Flordeliz Velayo, G.R. No. 198620, November 12, 2014)

Four Absences Without Leave CANNOT be considered as Gross Neglect of Duty, hence, NOT a ground for Termination of Employment.

Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under the Labor Code, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances.
(Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Michelle Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, February 06, 2013)

SUPREME COURT SAYS: PLDT WORKERS PERFORMING INSTALLATION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE LINES HOLD REGULAR EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Doctrine of the case:

Labor contracting is not illegal per se. The fact that PLDT had contracted out specific jobs, works, or services does not automatically mean that the contractors’ employees are the direct employees of PLDT. However, PLDT workers engaged in installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines need to be regularized because they perform tasks that are necessary and desirable and directly related to the business of PLDT.

What is the difference between double insurance and over insurance?

Photo from Unsplash | Kelly Sikkema 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 What is the difference between double insurance and over insurance?[…]

Persons Prohibited from Being Designated as Beneficiaries (Article 2012 in relation to Article 739, New Civil Code)

Any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life insurance policy by the person who cannot make any donation to him, according to said article. (Article 2012, New Civil Code of the Philippines)

May an employee invoke his right against self-incrimination?

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” (Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution.)

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. (Alfredo Rosete, et al. v. Juliano Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 08, 2006)

What is a Progressive Discipline in the Workplace?

A progressive discipline policy entails a structured approach to addressing employee misconduct by implementing a series of escalating disciplinary actions, such as verbal warning, written warning, suspension (with or without pay), and termination.

In general, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations. (Philippine Span Asia Carriers Corporation vs. Heidi Pelayo, G.R. No. 212003, February 28, 2018)