EDLAW Office

27/02/2023

Congratulations Sir EYL for another feather in your cap. We wish you all the best!

09/02/2023

SC: Abusive Mothers can be Offenders under VAWC Law; Fathers can File Case on Behalf of Abused Children

READ full text here: F G.R. No. 239215 dated July 12, 2022 at

Randy Michael Knutson, acting on behalf of minor Rhuby Sibal Knutson Vs. Hon. Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores, in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 69, Regional Trial Court, Taguig City, and Rosalina Sibal Knutson G.R. No. 239215. July 12, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 02/06/2023] Separate Dissentin...

08/02/2023

A win for the Lazada riders.

Full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32478/

SC Rules in Favor of Dismissed Lazada Riders |

When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, granting the petition of Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines, Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (“petitioners”). The Petition challenged the rulings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals which found that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (“Lazada”).

The Court ordered Lazada to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions as Lazada riders, with full backwages computed from the time of dismissal up to the time of actual reinstatement. The case was also ordered remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the total monetary benefits due the petitioners.

In ruling in favor of the petitioners, the Supreme Court found that Lazada failed to discharge its burden of proving that the former were independent contractors rather than regular employees.

The Court found that all four factors in the four-fold test were present. First, petitioners were directly employed by Lazada as evidenced by the Contracts they signed. Second, as indicated in the Contract, they received their salaries from Lazada which paid each of them the amount of P1,200.00 for each day of service. Third, Lazada had the power to dismiss the petitioners. In their contract, Lazada could immediately terminate the agreement if there was a breach of material provisions of the Contract. Finally, Lazada had control over the means and methods of the performance of the work of the petitioners, as reflected in the way they carried out their work. Lazada required the accomplishment of a route sheet which kept track of the arrival, departure, and unloading time of the items. The petitioners also risked a penalty of P500.00 if an item was lost, on top of its actual value. They were also required to submit trip tickets and incident reports to Lazada.

In addition, the Court held that the services performed by the petitioners were integral to Lazada’s business, with the delivery of items clearly integrated in the services offered by Lazada. The Court also found that the petitioners were dependent on Lazada for their continued employment in this line of business since they were hired by Lazada directly after being previously engaged by a third-party contractor to provide services for Lazada. This, held the Court, shows that the petitioners were economically dependent on Lazada for their livelihood.

As to the provision in the Contract which expressly states that there is no employer-employee relationship, the Court ruled that “protection of the law afforded to labor precedes over the nomenclature and stipulations of the Contract…Thus, it is patently erroneous for the labor tribunals to reject an employer-employee relationship simply because the Contract stipulates that this relationship does not exist.”

Read the case digest at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32516/ and the decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32478/.

08/02/2023

SC Upholds Constitutionality of Train Act

The Court also reiterated that the Constitution, in its present form, does not prohibit the imposition of regressive taxes, but merely directs Congress to evolve a progressive system of taxation. Lastly, the Court ruled that petitioners’ contention that the provisions of the TRAIN Act are “anti-poor,” was not sufficiently proven and remained largely hypothetical.

SC Upholds Constitutionality of TRAIN Act |

The Supreme Court En Banc, during its session on Tuesday, January 24, 2023, upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 10963, or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN Act), which amended R.A. No. 8424, or the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.

The Court, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, dismissed the consolidated petitions in G.R. No. 236118 (ACT Teachers Representative Antonio Tinio, et al., v. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al.) and G.R. No. 236295 (Laban Konsyumer, Inc., et al., v. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al.) which argued, among others, that the TRAIN Act was unconstitutionally passed by the House of Representatives despite a purported lack of quorum, and that its provisions which imposed excise taxes on diesel, coal, liquefied petroleum gas, and kerosene, were prohibited regressive taxes. The petitioners also argued that these same excise taxes were confiscatory and discriminatory against the poor and violated the Filipino people’s right to due process and equal protection of laws.

The Court held that the supposed absence of a quorum was belied by the official Journal of the House of Representatives, both on the day that the TRAIN’s Bicameral Conference Report was ratified and the immediately subsequent session on January 15, 2018. As between the livestream video and photographs presented by the petitioners, and the Congressional Journal, the latter must prevail as to the events on the Congressional floor on that fateful day given that no less than the Constitution itself grants the Congressional Journal its imprimatur. The Court also reiterated that the Constitution, in its present form, does not prohibit the imposition of regressive taxes, but merely directs Congress to evolve a progressive system of taxation. Lastly, the Court ruled that petitioners’ contention that the provisions of the TRAIN Act are “anti-poor,” was not sufficiently proven and remained largely hypothetical.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32655/. The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload the decision to the Supreme Court website once it receives an official copy from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc.

04/02/2023

SC Sets Rules on When Private Offended Party Can Appeal Judgments, Orders in Criminal Proceedings

Full text here: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32735/

16/01/2023

EDLAW is 30! We thank all our valued clients and partners for their continued trust and support. Cheers to more years of working together.

04/01/2023

04/01/2023

Happy new year! Our elevator is now fully functional. For appointments, you can send us a message here or through the following:

email: [email protected]
telephone: (035) 422 6511
mobile: (+63) 975 430 4917

07/12/2022

Happy Birthday, JRM! We wish you Love, Life, and Laughter today and everday.