LABOR COURT

CHRISTOBAL BACOLOD
IN THE CASE OF DINDO MANON- OG DAGOHOY ET
AL. VS. AMO SFC CONSTRUCTION , DINDO

MANON-OG IS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER

TOGETHER WITH HIS CO-PLAINTIFFS. THEY
FILED A CASE AGAINST AMO SFC FOR
C O L L E C T I O N O F T H E I R S E P A R A T I O N P A Y. T H E
S E PA RAT I O N PAY O F DAG O H OY A M O U N T E D T O
8 , 0 0 0 P H P W H I L E T O H I S C O - W O R K E R 5 , 0 0 0 P H P.
. T H E O W N E R O F T H E A M O S F C C O N T E N D S T H AT
THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT HIS
E MP LOY E ES , A RG U I N G F URT H ER T H AT T H E T W O
ARE THE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR FOREMAN. ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUED
T H AT A M A S F C I S T H E I R E M P LOY E R.

In this case the officer in charge inquired whether they have proof of their
employment under AMO SFC i.e payment slip.
The case was settled wherein the owner of AMO SFC agreed to pay the
separation pay of the plaintiffs but on a reduced rate.

it is my observation that the law is being followed by the courts. First,

the burden of proving employer-employee relationship is on the
employee. Second, the principal who invokes that the persons
claiming to be his employees are not his employees but that of an
independent contractor, the burden of proving the existence of a
legitimate independent contractor is on the principal. However, this
case is set for mediation at the stage but the same matters are also
brought up by the OIC may be because it is inorder that the parties
may foresee what could be the possible scenarios during the trial.
The rules of court applies in a suppletory manner

Ronald Tenorio vs. Software cellular network. software cellular hired Ronald
tenorio as a call center agent. He was hired as a probationary employee. At
the time he was hired, it was averred by the representative of the
defendant that he was appraised of the qualifications that he needs to
meet, in order that he may be regularized. However before the
probationary period ends, he was terminated on his third month on work.
He then filed a case for illegal termination averring that theres no valid
ground to terminate him from his employment
tenorio was alone and without a counsel. on the other hand, software cellular
is represented by its counsel. As I observe, this kind of proceeding is very
disadvantageous to the party who has no lawyer on his/her side during the
meeting. The OIC then advised the plaintiff that he should get one from the
public attorneys office and return to the court .On this part it is of my
observation and opinion that there was compliance with the due process
clause since, though, the plaintiff being one without a lawyer was able to
get a chance to present his side before the Labor Arbiter.

CORPORATE COURT
Hsieh- yi fang vs. Mark Wilson Dee. The case was set for examination
of petitioners last witness. The witness presented is a branch
manager of BDO where the checks were en cashed. The issue in
this case is the unauthorized withdrawals of checks payable to
cash. The counsel for the respondent in cross examination question
the witness on the process of en cashing checks, on why did he
allow the petitioners to withdraw the check without authorization.
The witness explained that checks payable to cash can be withdrawn
by any person who is a holder thereof. Moreover he explained that
there was no authorization asked from the holder because he
believes that the holder of the check is the representative of the
corporation since he always see him in the bank. Further it was
explained that the person who withdraw a check may be identified
by his signature on the dorsal portion of the check.