This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-04-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise. The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court.[34] Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action and every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real parties-in-interest.[35] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This issue is factual in nature because it requires a re-evaluation of the evidence at hand. Under Rule 45, factual findings are ordinarily not subject to this Court's review. The general rule is that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. A recognized exception to this rule is when the Court of Appeals and the trial court, or in this case the administrative body, make contradictory findings.[28] However, the exception does not apply in every instance that the Court of Appeals and the trial court or administrative body disagree. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals remain conclusive on this Court if such findings are supported by the record or based on substantial evidence.[29] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we rule that attorney's fees in the amount to P10,000.00 should be granted to each respondent. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[100] This case undoubtedly falls within this rule. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| without demotion in rank or diminution of salary benefits is, to our mind, inaccurate. It is well to remember that constructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefits, and privileges. For an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer may become so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[35] The insensibility of private respondents is at once deducible from the foregoing circumstances. Despite their knowledge that the lone operations and maintenance center of the 33 ALCATEL 1000 S12 Exchanges would be "homed" in Sampaloc,[36] PLDT officials neglected to disclose this vital piece of information to petitioners before they acceded to be | |||||