Socoro Ramirez vs Court of Appeal & Ester Garcia FACTS: 1.

The petitioner filed a civil case for damages against the respondent with RTC for the alleged humiliation, insult and vexation and there presented a recording as an evidence. 2. The respondent file a criminal case with RTC against the petitioner for the violation in the anti-wire tapping law RA 4200. 3. The petitioner filed a motion to quash with the RTC and the same was granted based on the following reasons: a. The information is not a violation of the RA 4200, b. The said law refers to the person other than a party to the communication. 4. The said petition for certiorari was filed with the Court but was refered to the Court of Appeal which then issued a decision revising the lower courts decision since the lower court acted in grave abuse of discretion correctible by Certiorari 5. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4200 applies to the person a party to the communication or conversation. RULINGS: 1. The court upheld the decision of the Court of appeals considering that the law is clear and that it did not make any distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized includes the party to the communication or not. 2. The statutes intention was to penalize all unauthorized recording underscored by utilizing the word any and makes no distinction. 3. The legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.

Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Com vs. NLRC and Imelda Salazar Fact: 1. The petitioner employed Imelda Salazar as General system analyst but was later on subjected to preventive suspention due to its alleged violation of the company regulation by letting herself involved in transaction affecting the companys interest being then as General System Analyst and that she was also suspected to have a full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of the Feedlers air conditioner but failed to inform her employer. 2. In the said suspension, the respondent was required to submit her explanation but instead of submitting an explanation, she filed a case with the Labor Arbiter for illegal suspension but was later on changed to illegal dismissal. For she was then dismissed by the petitioner for her inability to refute and disprove the findings. 3. The Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioner to reinstate the respondent and to pay her full back wages. 4. The said decision was appealed to the NLRC but the Labor Arbiters decision was apheld. ISSUE: Whether or not the Labor Tribunal has committed a grave abuse of discretion in its decision. RULINGS; 1. The law is on the side of the respondent considering that the law is very clear and unambiguous. 2. Under the statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

3. The legislature, in making the statute employs words that manifest expressly the intent and purpose of the legislature. 4. Hence, NLRC decision was affirmed.