California Clothing Inc. v. Shirley Quinones, GR No. 175822, October 23, 2013

Image credit: thenonconformer.wordpress.com

"Abuse of Rights and its elements" "Law on Human Relations"

Shirley Quinones went to shop at the Guess USA Boutique and purchased a pair of jeans. She paid the item and was issued a receipt by the store's cashier. As she walked away a store employee went after her demanding to pay the item. She told the employee she already paid it and showed her the receipt of her purchase. As the store employee insisted she forgot to pay, respondent requested they meet at her office in Cebu Pacific which is only located at the same building to talk about the concern. The respondent claimed to have been humiliated when the store employee continued to demand payment in front of Cebu Pacific's clients and even wrote a letter to her employer and HRD of Robinson's narrating the incident for the purpose of canceling her credit card.

Respondent claimed to have suffered from anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious apprehension, fright, moral shock and social humiliation.

LOOKING FOR CHEAP DELIVERY SERVICE? BOOK WITH TOKTOK HERE!

The petitioner explained there was miscommunication between the employees regarding the payment made of the respondent. They alleged that they were polite in asking the respondent for some clarifications on the payment made on her items. The RTC ruled the petitioner acted in good faith believing the respondent failed to pay. The act of demanding payment is a mere exercise of their right with honest belief that no payment was made. It also finds the demand to pay made in front of Cebu Pacific's clients not damaging because it was the respondent's fault to continue their discussion at her office. The letters sent to the respondent's employee is likewise not damaging because the petitioners were merely asking assistance and not intended to humiliate or embarrass her.

The CA reversed the RTC decision. It finds bad faith when the petitioner wrote the letter to the respondent's employer who is not privy to their transactions and subjected the respondent to ridicule and humiliation. Moreover, the official receipt presented by the respondent suffice as proof of payment which does not warrant further investigation against her. 

The petitioner now filed an appeal before the SC.

ISSUE

Is Quinones entitled to damages?

RULING

YES. 

The complaint against the petitioners stem from the principle of abuse of rights. 

As cited by the court in the case of Carpio v Valmonte, under the law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done negligently or willfully, is given a remedy or recourse to obtain relief from the damage or injury that the victim sustained. 

ORDER ORIGINAL COPPERMARK HERE

Our civil law is also imbued not only with the principles of equity, but also of moral precepts that are designed with certain norms that come from good conscience that guides human conduct. One of these fundamental moral precepts is the abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code that has the following elements: 

(1) there is a legal right or duty

(2) which is exercised in bad faith

(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

ARTICLE 19 of the Civil law requires that "a person must, in the exercise of a right or duty, act in good faith." Good faith is a state of mind which is manifested by the act of an individual. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

Any person who acted in bad faith thus will be liable for damages.

The court recognizes the right of the petitioners to make clarification from the respondent whether payment was made or not, however, the manner of such inquiry is not proper. The exercise of a right must be made in accordance to such purpose and must not be harsh.

The court also ruled that complementing Article 19 are the following:

SATISFY YOUR CRAVINGS. ORDER HERE!

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Thus, the respondent is entitled to damages.

Benigno Vigilla, et al. v Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. GR No. 200094, June 10, 2013

Law Principle:

Anything favorable to the labor-only contractor redounds to the benefit of the employer under the principle of solidary liability

Facts:

The petitioners work for the Philippine College of Criminology Inc. (PCCr) as janitors, janitress and supervisor in its maintenance department. The petitioners were made to understand by the respondent PCCr that they are under the Metropolitan Building Services, Inc. (MBMSI) which is a corporation engaged in providing janitorial services. PCCr terminated the services of MBMSI on 2009 which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioners. An illegal dismissal complaint was then filed against PCCr by the petitioners contending that it is their real employer and not MBMSI. Subsequently, the PCCr submitted to the Labor Arbiter waivers, releases and quitclaims that were executed by the petitioners in favor to MBMSI.

The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioner, however upon filing the petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the CA ruled that the quitclaims, releases and waivers executed by the petitioners in favor to MBMSI redounds to the benefit of PCCr by virtue of solidary liability under Article 1217 of the NewCivil Code. The petitioners contend that under Article 106 of the Labor Code a labor-only contractor's liability is not solidary as it is the employer who should be directly responsible to the supplied worker.

Issue

Whether or not the quitclaims, releases and waivers executed by the petitioners in favor to MBMSI redounds to the benefit of PCCr?

Held

Yes.

The Supreme Court held that the basis of the solidary liability of the principal with those engaged in labor-only contracting is the last paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code that provides, "In such cases of labor-only contracting, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him."

It also pointed out D.O. No. 18-A, s. 2011 section 27 providing for the effects of labor-only contracting "where upon the finding by competent authority of labor-only contracting shall render the principal jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the latter's employees, in the same manner and extent that the principal is liable to employees directly hired by him/her, as provided in Article 106 of the Labor Code."

Hence, the PCCr's solidary liability was already expunged by virtue of the releases, waivers and quitclaims executed by the petitioners in favor of MBMSI by virtue of Article 1217 of the Civil Code providing that "payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation."

Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of City of Manila G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013

"What constitutes double taxation"

FACTS:

This is a case filed by the petitioner for Refund of Taxes. In its letter to the City of Manila Treasurer, the petitioner claimed double taxation when it paid business taxes under Sections 14 and 21 of Ordinance No. 7794 which is the Manila Revenue Code. The respondent contends that both sections refer to two distinct objects of tax, hence they are not the same in character and kind that will result in double taxation. The RTC, CTA division and CTA en banc denied the petition for a tax refund filed by the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not both sections of the Manila Revenue Code constitute double taxation

RULING:

Yes, there is double taxation.

The ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE TAXATION ARE:

The taxes are imposed on
1. The same subject matter
2. For the same purpose
3. By the same taxing authority
4. Within the same taxing jurisdiction
5. For the same taxing period
6. The same kind of character

While the petitioner is liable for the payment of business taxes to the City of Manila, the fact that it already paid under section 14 of the Manila Revenue Code, it is already precluded from paying the tax imposed under section 21 of the same code.

As has been noted by the court, both sections are imposed for the following:
1. for the same subject matter,  which is for doing business in the City of Manila
2. for the same purpose, which his to contribute to the city revenues
3. By the same taxing authority, which is the City of Manila
4. Within the same taxing jurisdiction, which is the territory of City of Manila
5. For the same taxing period, which is the same calendar year when both taxes were paid
6. For the same kind of character, which is a local business tax

Considering these nature of taxes paid by the petitioner under both sections of the Code, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to a tax refund for the tax it paid under Section 21.

Abbot Laboratories Philippines, et al. vs Perlie Alcaraz GR No. 192571, July 23, 2013

Case Doctrine:

Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself.

Facts:

The respondent Alcaraz was the Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager of Aventis Pasteur Philippines who showed interest in applying as a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager, a position that was published by the petitioner Abbot Laboratories in the newspaper. When the petitioner formally offered the position to the respondent, the latter accepted the position. It was on May 23, 2005 that Walsh, Almazar and Bernardo formally handed to the respondent a letter terminating her employment with the detailed explanation for her termination. The respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against the petitioner and its officers. The Labor Arbiter upheld the termination of probationary employment of the respondent holding that the termination was justified with no evidence showing that the officers of the Abbot Lab acted in bad faith when terminating her services.

The NLRC annulled and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter which prompted the petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, the action of the petitioner on its motion for reconsideration of the CA’s resolution in the second CA petition was denied that became final on January 10, 2011 because the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal on the said decision. Alcaraz, in her comment, raised the issue on forum shopping when the petitioner filed its second petition to the CA pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration that they filed earlier in the December 10, 2009 decision. Alcaraz further contends that the petitioners failed to comply with certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the rules of court when they failed to disclose in their petition filed on June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal filed before the NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping and have violated the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

Carlito C. Encinas v PO1 Alfredo Agustin, Jr and PO1 Joel Caubang GR No. 187317, April 11, 2013

Case Doctrine:

There is forum shopping when litis pendencia or res judicata is present.

FACTS:

The petitioner Encinas was the Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija. He was charged administratively with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of the Administrative Code of 1987. He was dismissed from the service. The two respondents were holding the positions of Fire Officer I. He petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

The case arose when the petitioner allegedly required the respondents to pay him P5,000 in order not to relieve them from their station at the Cabanatuan City and re-assign them to a far flung area. The respondents decided to pay in fear of the re-assignment, but they manage to come up with P2,000 only causing the petitioner to order for their re-assignment to Cuyapo and Talugtug.

As a result, the respondents decided to file a complaint for illegal transfer before the Bureau of Fire Protection and at the same time filed another complaint before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in Pampanga and the Civil Service Commission in Cabanatuan. Based on the filed complaints, the petitioner alleges that the respondents are guilty of forum shopping by filing the two identical complaints. The petitioner claims that the charges of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to public interest that were filed before the Civil Service Commission and the BFP are in violation of the rules against forum shopping.

ISSUE:

Is there a violation on the rules against forum shopping?