Know Your Lawyer

2 Replies | Related posts at the end of article

I’m not talking about track record, competence, degree of confidence and the high level of trust that comes with the attorney-client relationship. Of course, these considerations are crucial because a client entrusts his properties, even his liberty and life, to the able hands of his lawyer.

What I’m referring to is something that I never imagined I would encounter. Only members of the Philippine Bar of good standing, or those who passed the bar exams (scheduled every September of each year) given by the Supreme Court and have taken the lawyer’s oath, may practice law (every lawyer is a compulsory member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines). Only recently, we discovered that the opposing “counsel” in a criminal case is apparently not a lawyer (well, that’s what the certification from the Office of Bar Confidant stated). Continue reading →

Reinstatement Pending Appeal: Waiting for the Pendulum to Swing

2 Replies | Related posts at the end of article

(Published in Personnel Management Association of the Philippines [PMAP] IR Focus, Issue No. 6)

In many warm mornings on my way to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), I would sometimes daydream of lounging on a beach somewhere, rather than confronting another labor-management conflict. As sure as the sun rises, however, sparks in the constant tug-of-war between labor and management are bound to arise. I have worked with both camps, so to speak, and I really have no problem with the bias of law in favor of labor. However, as the Supreme Court itself noted, this bias is not an excuse to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Justice should always be for the deserving.

Continue reading →

Legal Dynamics: Citizenship and Divorce

80 Replies | Related posts at the end of article

Discussions are welcome in the Forum. As more subjects here are discussed by the readers, the interaction of one topic with another (or between related laws) results to a legal melting pot, enriching the pool of topics to choose from.

For instance, we have discussed (“Divorce and Annulment in the Philippines“) that a Filipino – wherever he/she may be located in the world – is governed by Philippine laws on marriage. This means that while he/she can secure a divorce outside the Philippines, such divorce is NOT recognized in the Philippines. The same article also contains a discussion on the effect of losing Filipino citizenship vis-a-vis divorce. If a Filipino is naturalized as a foreign citizen and, in the process, loses his/her Filipino citizenship, such former Filipino can validly seek a divorce abroad and the divorce is recognized in the Philippines. In other words, after complying with the procedure in having the foreign decree of divorce judicially recognized (through a court action) here in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse may validly remarry.

Continue reading →

Fixing the Principal Place of Business: ‘Metro Manila’ No Longer Allowed

Leave a reply | Related posts at the end of article

Corporations are no longer allowed to use ‘Metro Manila’ as a principal place of business in the Articles of Incorporation (AOI), as provided under Memorandum Circular No. 3 (26 January 2006) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Prior to this Circular, corporations located within Metro Manila usually indicate ‘Metro Manila’, without specifying the city or municipality where they are actually located, as their corporate address or principal place of business. This is intended to obviate the need of amending the AOI if the corporation subsequently transfers its place of business.

From a litigation point of view, the more obvious significance is the determination of venue in filing of cases. Like natural persons or individuals, a corporation also has a residence, which is the address specified in its AOI duly filed with the SEC. A case may be filed, for or against the corporation, at a court where the corporation ‘resides’.

[Update: See Contents of Articles of Incorporation under the Revised Corporation Code]

Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (The Case of Executive Order No. 464)

3 Replies | Related posts at the end of article

The non-appearance of executive officials in the recent Senate inquiry resurrected the controversy surrounding Executive Order No. 464. With this, let’s revisit the ruling in Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, wherein a unanimous Supreme Court (en banc) struck down Sections 2 (b) and 3 of E.O. 464 as unconstitutional, but upheld the validity of Sections 1 and 2(a).

Continue reading →

General Information Sheet (GIS) Prescribed Form

1 Reply | Related posts at the end of article

[The General Information Sheet (GIS) is one of the documents required to be submitted to the SEC on a yearly basis. As prescribed in SEC Circular No. 5 (2006), starting 1 April 2006, only filings that conform to the format of the official GIS form shall be accepted by SEC. Any deviation shall be considered as non-compliant with existing rules and regulation and, hence, will not be accepted. Update: See GIS under the Revised Corporation Code.]

Continue reading →

Computation of Pay for Holidays: Regular, Special Non-Working, Special Working

129 Replies | Related posts at the end of article

One of the more confusing matters, for employees and HR people alike, is the computation of holiday pay, complicated by the fact that there are different “kinds” of holidays. This is cleared by Memorandum Circular No. 1 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the full text of which is reproduced and discussed below (added: see computation for double holidays). Continue reading →