Sei sulla pagina 1di 2


Crisanto Castro, Jr. vs. Ateneo de Naga University, Fr. Joel Tabora et al G.R. No. 175293,
July 23, 2014

Worthy to stress is that retirement is of a different species from the reliefs awarded to an
illegally dismissed employee. Retirement is a form of reward for an employees loyalty and
service to the employer, and is intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his
life, and to lessen the burden of worrying about his financial support or upkeep. In contrast, the
reliefs awarded to an illegally dismissed employee are in recognition of the continuing
employer-employee relationship that has been severed by the employer without just or
authorized cause, or without compliance with due process.

Furthermore, the rule is that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of labor laws
should be resolved in favor of labor. In ruling that an order or award for reinstatement does not
require a writ of execution, the Court is simply adhering and giving meaning to this rule.
Henceforth, we rule that an award or order for reinstatement is self-executory.

National Wages and Productivity Commission and the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Board vs. Alliance of Progressive Labor and the Tunay na Nagkakaisang
Manggagawa sa Royal G.R. No. 150326, March 12, 2014

In creating the RTWPBs, Congress intended to rationalize wages, firstly, by establishing full time
boards to police wages roundtheclock, and secondly, by giving the boards enough powers to
achieve this objective. In the nature of their functions, the RTWPBs investigate and study all the
pertinent facts to ascertain the conditions in their respective regions. Hence, they are logically
vested with the competence to determine the applicable minimum wages to be imposed as well
as the industries and sectors to exempt from the coverage of their wage orders

Mega Magazine Inc. Jerry Tiu and Sarita Yap vs. Margaret Defensor G.R. No. 162021, June
16, 2014

The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management prerogative, is not a

demandable and enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or special incentive is made
part of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee, or is promised by the employer and
expressly agreed upon by the parties. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not
accomplished, the bonus does not accrue. Due to the nature of the bonus or special incentive
being a gratuity or act of liberality on the part of the giver, the respondent could not validly
insist on the schedule proposed in her memorandum of April 5, 1999 considering that the grant
of the bonus or special incentive remained a management prerogative. However, the Court
agrees with the CAs ruling that the petitioners had already exercised the management
prerogative to grant the bonus or special incentive. At no instance did Yap flatly refuse or reject
the respondents request for commissions and the bonus or incentive. This is plain from the fact
that Yap even bargained with the respondent on the schedule of the rates and the revenues
on which the bonus or incentive would be pegged.

Netlink Computer Incorporated vs. Eric Delmo G.R. No. 160827, June 18, 2014

As a general rule, all obligations shall be paid in Philippine currency. However, the contracting
parties may stipulate that foreign currencies may be used for settling obligations. This is
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8183 which provides as follows: Section 1. All monetary
obligations shall be settled in the Philippine currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.
However, the parties may agree that the obligation or transaction shall be settled in any other
currency at the time of payment.


Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 190506,
June 13, 2016

With the issuance of RMC 74-99, the distinction under the old rule was disregarded and the new
circular took into consideration the two important principles of the Philippine VAT system: the
Cross Border Doctrine and the Destination Principle. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7916
mandates that PEZA shall manage and operate the ECOZONE as a separate customs territory.
The provision thereby establishes the fiction that an ECOZONE is a foreign territory separate
and distinct from the customs territory. Accordingly, the sales made by suppliers from a customs
territory to a purchaser located within an ECOZONE will be considered as exportations.
Following the Philippine VAT system's adherence to the Cross Border Doctrine and Destination
Principle, the VAT implications are that "no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of
goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority".