Zenaida Paz v Northern Tobacco Redrying Company

Ratio 1:
Although an employee is hired on a seasonal basis, he or she
may still be considered as a regular worker when he or she performs
tasks necessary and indispensable to the company. In such a case, the
employee is classified as a regular seasonal employee.
Ratio 2:
An amendment of a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with
backwages as to include a complaint for Payment of Retirement Pay is
not necessarily fatal to the cause of action for illegal dismissal,
provided that the complainant does not abandon his or her argument
for illegal dismissal when the amendment to the complaint was made.
Ratio 3: Due process and nominal damages
In cases of termination of employees, failure on the part of the
employer to comply with the procedural and substantive due process
requirements of the Labor Code and applicable jurisprudence
necessitates the payment of nominal damages which according to
prevailing jurisprudence is pegged at the amount of 30,000 pesos.
Ratio 4: Retirement pay
In computation of the amount to be paid as retirement pay, the
proviso in Arts. 283 and 284 which states a fraction of at least six
months shall be considered one whole year covering the payment of
separation pay also applies in the computation for the payment of
retirement pay.
Ratio 5:
In labor cases, financial assistance may be awarded as a measure
of social justice in exceptional circumstances and as an equitable
concession especially when the employee has worked for the
employer for a long time and there are no records of any malfeasance
or violation of company rules; the employee is already of advanced
age thus lessening his or her employment opportunities
People of the Philippines v Victor Romana
Ratio 1:
In searches incidental to lawful arrest, it is the police officer
who should observe facts that would lead a person to a reasonable
degree of suspicion. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion
initiated by another person which as in this case was a jeepney driver.
Failure to comply with this requirement would render the search
invalid.

Ratio 2: Waiver of constitutional rights

Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure cannot
be deemed as waived even when the accused did not object to such
search and seizure. The silence of the accused cannot be taken as
consent to such search. For the waiver to be valid, it is necessary that
the police officer inform the person to be searched that any inaction
on his part will amount to a waiver of any of his or her objections that
the circumstances do not amount to a reasonable search.
Ratio 3:
Following the doctrine laid own in Stonehill v Diokno, Evidence
obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence
because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures." It ensures
that the fundamental rights to ones person, houses, papers, and
effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
Automat Realty and Development Corporation v Sps. Marciano
dela Cruz
Ratio 1:
The following elements must be present in order that an
agricultural tenancy relationship may exist: 1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject
matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) there is consent
between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee;
and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee. There must be substantial evidence on the
presence of all these requisites; otherwise, there is no de jure tenant.
Only those who have established de jure tenant status are entitled to
security of tenure and coverage under tenancy laws.
The Dicoese of Bacolod v Commission on Elections
Ratio 1:
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the
enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised
by a non-candidate in this case. Thus, the right of expression of
individuals, who are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates,
may not be regulated by the COMELEC.
Ratio 2:

Article IX-C, Section 2(7) of the Constitution applies only to

candidates. The restriction by the COMELEC as to the publication of
campaign materials by private individuals therefore is not valid
Ratio 3:
Although the subject of the case is not a law, the Court has
applied Art. III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution even to governmental
acts. Thus, the resolution by the COMELEC prohibiting the posting of
the tarpaulin is still subject to the prohibition under the Constitution.
Ratio 4:
The restrictions stated in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9006 on
"Lawful Election Propaganda" refers to matter done by or on behalf of
and in coordination with candidates and political parties. Some level
of coordination with the candidates and political parties is necessary.
It does not apply to the advocacies of third persons. Such is protected
by the constitutional right to freedom of speech.