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

contact

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

The Supreme Court Decides: Petitioner is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits but only to Grade 12 disability benefits as found by the company-designated doctors

As mandated under the POEA-SEC, as amended by POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, upon repatriation, the seafarer concerned shall be examined and treated by the company-designated physician. If the seafarer disagrees with the final assessment of the company-designated physician, the former may procure a second opinion from a physician of his or her choice. In case of a conflicting assessment, the parties may resort to a third doctor.

The Supreme Court Decides: As a general rule, only the employer-corporation, and not its officers, may be held liable for illegal dismissal of employees. The exception applies when corporate officers acted with bad faith.

Willful disobedience or insubordination requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful which is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

The Supreme Court Decides: Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee.

Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee.

The Supreme Court Decides: Foreclosure proceedings based on unfair interest rates should be annulled.

The unilateral imposition of interests, at such rate that the lender or mortgagee so pleases, cannot and should not be reason to justify a foreclosure sale. The mortgagor should be given a chance to pay their indebtedness at an interest rate clearly agreed upon by the parties, otherwise, they shall be at the mercy of their creditor, standing to lose their property without being afforded a fair opportunity to settle their indebtedness.

The Supreme Court Decides: The mere fact that the agent was authorized to mortgage the property is not enough to bind the principal; the deed must also be executed and signed by the agent for and on behalf of his or her principal.

Agency is extinguished by the death of either the principal or the agent. Thus, any act by the agent subsequent to the principal’s death is void ab initio, unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court decides: A marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

Article 35 (2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by person with no legal authority are considered void, except if one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage.

The Supreme Court decides: Police officers’ failure to state with accuracy the actual denomination of bets amounts to reasonable doubt

In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Where there is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they must be acquitted even though their innocence may be questionable. The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court decides: Surgeon is not guilty medical malpractice case over failed stent procedure

According to the case of ELPIDIO QUE VS. PHILIPPINE HEART CENTER, G.R. No. 268308, April 02, 2025, a medical professional has the duty to observe the standard of care and exercise the degree of skill, knowledge, and training ordinarily expected of other similarly trained medical professionals acting under the same circumstances. A breach of the accepted standard of care constitutes negligence or malpractice and renders the defendant liable for the resulting injury to his patient.

The Supreme Court decides: Preventive suspension of employee who locked company out of its own software is valid

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.

The Supreme Court decides: There is no qualified rape in case of adoptive relatives under the old adoption law

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.