Documents

Philo of law digests

Description
Description:
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  Gelos vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 86186. May 8, 1992 Topic: Definition of Agricultural Tenancy Facts: The Private Respondent owned the subject land of 25,000 square meters in Laguna. The Landowner then entered in to a contract with the petitioner and employed him to be laborer on the land with the wage of 5.00 peso a day. The Petitioner first went the Court of Agrarian Relation and then went to Ministry of Agrarian reform and asked the court to fix the agricultural lease rental of the land and his request was granted. The private respondent then filed a complaint of illegal detainer against the petitioner that was that was dismissed by the Ministry of Agrarian reform for the existence of Tenancy relations between the parties. The Private respondents appealed to the office of the President alleging that there was no tenancy relation between the parties. The RTC rendered dismissed the complaint and assailed that there was a tenancy relation between the parties. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. Issue: Is there a Tenancy relation between the parties? Held: No, it was clear that the petitioner were not intended to be tenant but a mere employee of the private respondent as showed in the contract. The petitioner was paid for specific kind of work. The court stressed many cases that: tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important. Facts:On July 3, 1993, R.A. No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) took effect. It abolished the old Central Bank of the Philippines, and created a new BSP. On June 8, 2001, almost eight years after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7653, petitioner Central Bank (now BSP) Employees Association, Inc., filed a petition for prohibition against BSP and the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President, to restrain respondents from further implementing the last proviso in Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, on the ground that it is unconstitutional. The thrust of petitioners challenge is that the above proviso makes an unconstitutional cut between two classes of employees in the BSP, viz: (1) the BSP officers or those exempted from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) (exempt class); and (2) the rank-and-file (Salary Grade [SG] 19 and  below), or those not exempted from the coverage of the SSL (non-exempt class). It is contended that this classification is a classic case of class legislation, allegedly not based on substantial distinctions which make real differences, but solely on the SG of the BSP personnels position. Petitioner also claims that it is not germane to the purposes of Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, the most important of which is to establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in the BSP. In sum, petitioner posits that the classification is not reasonable but arbitrary and capricious, and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Issue: whether the last paragraph of Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that No person shall be. . . denied the equal protection of the laws. Held: Jurisprudential standards for equal protection challenges indubitably show that the classification created by the questioned proviso, on its face and in its operation, bears no constitutional infirmities.In the case at bar, it is clear in the legislative deliberations that the exemption of officers (SG 20 and above) from the SSL (Salary Standardization Law a)was intended to address the BSPs lack of competitiveness in terms of attracting competent officers and executives. It was not intended to discriminate against the rank-and-file. If the end-result did in fact lead to a disparity of treatment between the officers and the rank-and-file in terms of salaries and benefits, the discrimination or distinction has a rational basis and is not palpably, purely, and entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense.

cv

Sep 22, 2019

bus com chap 3

Sep 22, 2019
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x