Actual damages are not presumed. The claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable.
G.R. No. 192446, 19 November 2014
Complainant GMA Veterans Force, Inc. filed a Complaint for Damages against defendant Snow Mountain Dairy Corporation. Previously, complainant and defendant entered into a security service agreement whereby. Just after a month, defendant informed complainant that all of the latter’s security personnel would be replaced and all monies due in the contract will be settled. Continue reading here.
The two-year period under Section 229 does not apply to claims for a refund or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT because it is not considered ‘excessively’ collected.
G.R. No. 198076, 19 November 2014
The issue was whether or not Taganito’s judcial claim was prematurely filed. It is clear that “the two-year period under Section 229 does not apply to claims for a refund or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT because it is not considered ‘excessively’ collected. Instead, San Roque settled that Section 112 applies to claims for a refund or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT, thereby making the 120+ 30 day period prescribed therein mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.
Continue reading here.
Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC provides that the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the company-designated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private physician, the parties shall jointly agree to refer the matter to a third doctor whose findings shall be final and binding on both.
G.R. No. 209202, 19 November 2014
Complainant and seafarer Catalino B. Belmonte initiated a labor complaint for payment of disability benefits, among others, against defendant C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. Continue reading here.
If the work of a contractor has defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use, he may be required to remove the defect or execute another work. If he fails to do so, he shall be liable for the expenses by the employer for the correction of the work.
G.R. No. 183872, 17 November 2014
Complainant Owen Prosper A. Mackay initiated a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages against defendants Sps. Dana Caswell and Cerelina Caswell. Previously, defendants engaged the services of complainant and his group who obligated themselves to provide electrical installation service for P250,000.00 in the new home of the spouses. Continue reading here.
A title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of property ownership, which necessarily includes possession.
G.R. No. 199448, 12 November 2014
Complainant Sps. Bonifacio P. Obrero and Bernabela N. Obrero initiated a case for forcible entry against defendant Rolando S. Abadilla, Jr. Complainants claimed that they are the registered owners of the land in question based on a TCT registered under the name. Continue reading here.
By virtue of ratification, the acts of the board of directors become the acts of the stockholders themselves, even if those acts were, at the outset, unauthorized.
G.R. No. 154291, 12 November 2014
Lopez Realty, Inc. (LRI) and Asuncion Lopez-Gonzalez initiated a “Complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the spouses Tanjangco, Arturo and the Registrar of Deeds of Manila.” Continue reading here.
In computing the backwages and benefits awarded to the employees, the reckoning period is not interrupted by the NLRC’s reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal.
G.R. No. 211228, 12 November 2014
Complainants Sps. Florentino and Nilda Hernandez initiated a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer defendant University of Pangasinan Inc. (UPI), and certain concerned officers. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of complainants who were removed without just and valid cause. The NLRC initially affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision; however, on motion for reconsideration, the decision was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. Continue reading here.