Alt text: constructive dismissal case involving employee transfer
July 26, 2022
Companies have management prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which includes the right to prescribe to its employees the manner on how a work shall be performed and to re-assign or transfer employees. Abusive exercise of management prerogative may amount to constructive dismissal of an employee.
Case in point is Morales vs. Harbor Centre Port Terminal, Inc. [1] Morales, a division manager of the company’s accounting department, was transferred to operations cost accounting with duties of monitoring and evaluating all consumables request.
Morales protested the transfer stating that the same was a clear demotion as the position of operation cost accounting was not even in the plantilla of the company. The company responded by reminding Morales that transfer of employees is a management prerogative.
For the ensuing month, Morales would either be tardy or absent from work. Thereafter, on April 29, 2003 the company issued a warning reminding Morales that as employee he is subject to company rules and regulations and he may be disciplinarily dealt with.
In view of Morales’ continues absence or tardiness, a second warning was issued on May 6, 2003 and another “notice to report for work & final warning” on May 22, 2003.
In the meantime however, 3 days before the first warning was issued or on April 25, 2003, Morales already filed a case for illegal dismissal against the company and its officers.
In his complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA), Morales stated that he was constructively dismissed. On the other hand, the company argued that Morales’ transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative and Morales abandoned his new work assignment. The LA dismissed Morales’ complaint ruling that his transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative. On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA finding that Morales’ transfer was a clear demotion. The Court of Appeals, on petition for certiorari, reversed the NLRC. The Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC ruling.
What is a Constructive Dismissal?
Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because “continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay” and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.
In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.
What is a Management Prerogative and How May a Company Validly Exercise It?
Admittedly, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. By management prerogative is meant the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of workers.
Although jurisprudence recognizes said management prerogative, it has been ruled that the exercise thereof, while ordinarily not interfered with, is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice.
Thus, an employer may transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. Indeed, having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised.
What are the parameters in evaluating the application for registration of real property under the framework of Sections 14(1) and 14(2)?
Several parcel of lands, especially in the provinces, are not yet registered under the Torrens System though occupied and tilled by certain persons claiming ownership thereof. These parcels are untitled and the purported owners would only present a tax declaration in their names or in the names of their predecessors-in-interest when ask to prove ownership. Buyers of untitled lands would primarily ask for a Tax Declaration of the property and after sale rushes to transfer the same to their names. Tax Declaration however, as a general rule, is merely an evidence of possession but not ownership. It is thus advisable to have the real property titled once bought.
Section 14, PD 1529 enumerates the valid grounds for registration of title to land, viz.:
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. SCIENCE PARK OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., rep. by its Executive Vice-President and Gen. Manager, MR. RICHARD ALBERT I. OSMOND, G.R. No. 248306 July 28, 2021 distinguished the difference between registration under Section 14(1) and registration under Section 14(2) of PD 1529. It discussed how an application for registration of land should be evaluated under these two frameworks under Section 14 of PD 1529. Thus it stated that:
“Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines aptly drew the distinctions between the first and the second grounds, thus:
“(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that “those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945” have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.
“(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.
“(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
“(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the properly has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.
“(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.
“(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership. (emphases and underscoring added)
“In fine, an applicant invoking Section 14(1) of PD 1529 needs to prove the following elements: (a) the property forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain at the time of the filing of the application for registration; (b) it has been, by itself or through its predecessors-in-interest, in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property; and (c) the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
“On the other hand, an application for registration based on Section14(2) of PD 1529 must establish the following requisites: (a) the land is an alienable and disposable, and patrimonial property of the public domain; (b) the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land for at least 10 years, in good faith and with just title, or for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title; and (c) the land had already been converted to or declared as patrimonial property of the State at the beginning of the said 10-year or 30-year period of possession.”
BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 66-26 and 26-2011 provides guidelines in the tax treatment of Separation Benefits received by officials and employees on account of their separation from employment due to death, sickness or other physical disability and the issuance of Certificate of Tax Exemption from income tax and from the withholding tax.
Jurisdiction of MetroTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC under Republic Act 11576 has been expanded to cover up to Two million peso value of controversy
Jurisdictions of Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases as expanded by Republic Act 11576 are:
1. Exclusive original Jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two million pesos (2,000,000), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages, of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transaction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and cost s: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
while the Regional Trial Court’s new jurisdiction in civil cases under the same law is:
1. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
2. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
3. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
4. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
Understanding the different Bureau of Internal Revenue Issuances is essential for taxpayers, legal professionals, and businesses to ensure proper compliance with Philippine tax laws. This guide outlines the official definitions and purposes of each issuance as recognized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Types of Bureau of Internal Revenue Issuances
Revenue Regulations (RRs) are issuances signed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that specify, prescribe or define rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and related statutes.
Revenue Memorandum Orders (RMOs) are issuances that provide directives or instructions; prescribe guidelines; and outline processes, operations, activities, workflows, methods and procedures necessary in the implementation of stated policies, goals, objectives, plans and programs of the Bureau in all areas of operations, except auditing.
Revenue Memorandum Circulars (RMCs) are issuances that publish pertinent and applicable portions, as well as amplifications, of laws, rules, regulations and precedents issued by the BIR and other agencies/offices.
Revenue Administrative Orders (RAOs) are issuances that cover subject matters dealing strictly with the permanent administrative set-up of the Bureau, more specifically, the organizational structure, statements of functions and/or responsibilities of BIR offices, definitions and delegations of authority, staffing and personnel requirements and standards of performance.
As ruled by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Leo A. Abad et. al. vs. San Roque Metals Inc., G.R. No. 255368 – May 29, 2024, the requisites of a valid quitclaim executed by an employee are the following:
(1) the employees execute the deed of quitclaim voluntarily;
(2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
(3) the consideration of the quitclaim must be credible and reasonable; and,
(4) the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Absent these elements, the quitclaim may be invalidated. Consequently an invalidated quitclaim does not have the effect of res judicata between the parties.”
Also in the same case, the Hon. Supreme Court ruled that “[W]hen the Court reviews a Decision of the CA in a petition for Certiorari assailing a ruling of the NLRC, its scope of review is limited to the correctness of review of the CA’s finding of grave abuse of discretion. In labor cases, the NLRC abuses its discretion when “its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,” or when its ruling finds no basis in the evidence and applicable statutes and case law.”
“Mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Many couples in the Philippines have been trapped and endure the cruel consequences of their error in choosing a right spouse. Despite of abuses, infidelity, and abandonment, among other reasons (mostly committed by the husbands) Philippine congress deliberately avoided enacting divorce law due, mainly, to the influence of religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian denomination. Catholicism and Christianism were merely brought to the Philippines by its conquerors (the Spanish and Americans) and yet these countries which brought this faith to the Philippines have long allowed divorce in their respective jurisdictions. It has even become a comic story to tell that the only countries in the world where divorce is illegal are Vatican and the Philippines.
Indeed there are countless instances in the Philippines where a spouse wanted to get out of unwanted marriages. But they are prevented by the lack of legal process to terminate their marriages. Ours is a very strict mechanism of annulment, and, if I remember right the MCLE lecture of Atty. Katrina Legarda, of the thousands of annulment cases that reached the Supreme Court, not more than 5% of which have been granted. For the husbands or the wives who fell in wrongful partners this is not so good. Madalang pa sa patak ng ulan sa tag init.
Religion or church prevents them from staying out of erroneous partnership but I can’t imagine the help extended by the religion or the church while they are suffering from abusive and cruel marriage relationship. Is suffering the painful consequence of error in choice by virtue of the teaching saying “{W}hat therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”?[1]. Did God really intend this?
After the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Tan-Andal vs. Andal[2], I was of the impression that the stringent parameters in annulling marriages became a little bit relax. Unfortunately, what changed mainly is the holding that psychological incapacity is no longer a mental or personality disorder that should be proven by medical experts. It may now be proven by ordinary witnesses. However, the totality of the evidence must show that any one of the spouses’ personality made him/her impossible to understand and comply essential marital obligations. In this instance there must be witnesses or proofs that can attest to spouses’ personality and behaviour even before contracting marriage.
Following are the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Carullo-Padua vs. Padua[3] to warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and grant a prayer for annulment of marriage.
1. Parameters used in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal in determining what constitutes psychological incapacity:
a. The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;
b. Caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage;
c. Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and
d. Proven by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Psychological incapacity is now neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven by expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through dear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. a. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. b. In this way, the Code Committee’s intent to limit the incapacity to “psychic causes” is fulfilled. Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have been a simple mistake in one’s choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of one’s dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the incapacity existed in the first place.
3. Expert testimony or the testimony of a psychologist/psychiatrist is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the spouses’ lives before they contracted marriage may testify on their observations as to the incapacitated spouse’s behavior. What is important is that the totality of evidence is sufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity.
4. Juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity may be proven by ordinary witnesses who can describe the incapacitated spouse’s past experiences or environment while growing up which may have triggered one’s particular behaviour. The gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
5. Tan-Andal also modified the requirement on incurability – that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must now be incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. As explained, psychological incapacity must be:
“[…] so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”
6. Although that there is no requirement for one to be personally examined by a physician before he may be declared psychologically incapacitated because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity, the totality of evidence to be presented must support a finding of psychological incapacity. The testimonies of ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the contracting the marriage should include behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.
7. Sexual infidelity and abandonment, are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code and not for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
8. Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following:
a. true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;
b. this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and
c. the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.
9. Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibilities and duties as a married person; incapacity must be so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
10. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article. It must be stressed that an unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
References
[1]Holy Bible, Mark 10:9
[2]G.R. No. 196359, Supreme Court of the Philippines, May 11, 2021
[3]G.R. No. 208258, Supreme Court of the Philippines, April 27, 2022
One of the Ease of Doing Business Policies, sana noon pa!
BIR Removed the Expiration of Ors/SIs!
Citing the clamor of the taxpayers in line with the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a revenue regulation mandating the removal of expiration of duly printed official receipts of a business entity or professional. One better part of this regulation is that the existing manual receipts/invoices may still be used until fully exhausted. The Authority to Print receipts/invoices inclusive of its serial numbers and its usage shall also have no more expiration, and the phrase “THIS INVOICE/RECEIPT SHALL BE VALID FOR FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ATP” should now be omitted and for existing unused receipts should be disregarded.
The full text of Revenue Regulation 6-2022 dated 30 June 2022 is reproduced herein:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
ln 2012, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. l8-2012 regulated the printing of all invoices and receipts by setting a 5-year validity period on Authority to Print (ATP). Some taxpayers clamored that they incurred additional costs in printing new sets of manual receipts/invoices once the five-year validity already lapsed despite the remaining inventory of the said receipts/invoices.
The said five-year validity was extended to the system-generated receipts/invoices issued from Cash Register Machines (CRMs), Point-of-Sale (POS) Machines and Other Sales Receipting System Software pursuant to the provisions of RR No. l0-2015, as amended. Similarly, there will be additional burden to the taxpayers if they will apply for the renewal/ reissuance of their Permit to Use (PTU) whenever the five-year validity period will transpire.
In line with Republic Act (RA) No. 11032, otherwise known as “Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018”, the Bureau is continuously revisiting its policies and business processes to improve, streamline and reduce financial burden on the part of its clients.
SECTION 2. SCOPE
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 244 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, these Regulations shall cover taxpayers who will apply for the following:
ATP Official Receipts (ORs), Sales Invoices (SIs) and Other Commercial Invoices (CIs) based on Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. I 2-2013;
Registration of Computerized Accounting System (CAS)/Component of CAS based on Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 10-2020,, RMC No. 5-2021 and RMO No. 9-2021; and
PTU CRMs and PoS machines based on RR No. ll-2004 and RMO No. l0-2005.
SECTION 3. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
1. The five-year validity period of the PTU and/or system-generated receipts/invoices based on the abovementioned revenue issuances is hereby removed, hence all PTUs to be issued shall be valid unless revoked by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on grounds which shall include, but not limited to, the following:
a. Tampering of sales data/integrity of the data and/or software specification/features to alter/avoid the recording of a sale transaction;
b. Any major repair, upgrade, integration and modification/alteration without prior notification and approval by the BIR office concerned, including the items enumerated in Section V, Item No. 8 of RMO No. 9-2021, to wit:
i. Change in the functionalities of the system, particularly on enhancements that will have a direct effect on the financial aspect of the system that includes modified computations and other financial-related issues that were considered;
ii. Addition or Removal of modules or sub-modules within the system that will have a direct impact on the financial aspect of the system;
iii. Change in the system/software Version or Release Number that will have enhancements on the financial aspect of the system; and
iv. All other enhancements that will be deemed as a major system enhancement based on the recommendation of the technical evaluators of the BIR.
c. Any violation(s) on the policies and procedures for registration under RMO No. l0-2005 and RMO No. 9-2021, and other related revenue issuances.
2. The phrase “THIS INVOICE/RECEIPT SHALL BE VALID FOR FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE PERMIT TO USE” as previously required under RR No. l0-2015 as amended by RR No.16-2018, and the phrase “Valid Until” required on RMC No. 107-2019 shall be OMITTED at the bottom portion of the system-generated receipts/invoices.
3. ATP principal and supplementary receipts/invoices inclusive of its serial numbers and its usage shall also have no expiration, thus, the phrase “THIS INVOICE/RECEIPT SHALL BE VALID FOR FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ATP” and the phrase “Valid Until (mm/dd/yyyy)” on the manual receipts/invoices previously required on RMO No. 12-2013 shall also be OMITTED (or DISREGARDED for unused receipts/invoices).
SECTION 4. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
For Manual Receipts/Invoices with ATP
The validity date and the phrase as mentioned under Section 3 (3) of these regulations printed on the unused manual principal and supplementary receipts/invoices shall be disregarded and the same way may still be used until fully exhausted. Further, the subsequent printing of manual receipts/invoices upon the effectivity of these Regulations must not reflect the phrase (under Section 3 (3) of these Regulations) and shall no longer adopt the five-year validity.
For Receipts/Invoices Generated from CAS, Component of CAS with PTU or AC
All system-generated receipts/invoices that were issued with the aforementioned phrases previously required under RR No. 10-2015 as amended by RR No. I 6-2018 and RMO No. 9-2021, and RMC No. 107-2019 based on the previously approved system/software with corresponding PTU/AC shall be disregarded; however, the said system/software generating such receipts/invoices must be reconfigured to omit the said phrases.
For Receipts/Invoices Generated from CRMs and POS machines with PTU
All system-generated receipts/invoices that were issued with the aforementioned phrases previously required under RR No. 10-2015 as amended by RR No. I 6-2018, and RMC No. 107-2019, based on the previously approved CRMs and POS machines with corresponding PTU shall be disregarded; however, the said system/software generating such receipts/invoices must be reconfigured to omit the said phrases.
SECTION 5. REPEALING CLAUSE
All regulations, rules, orders or portions thereof contrary to the provisions of these Regulations are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVITY CLAUSE
These Regulations shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, whichever comes earlier.
“What is Retrenchment? Retrenchment or downsizing is a mode of terminating employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employee and without prejudice to the latter, resorted to by management during periods of business recession, industrial depression or seasonal fluctuations or during lulls over shortage of materials. It is a reduction in manpower, a measure utilized by an employer to minimize business losses incurred in the operation of its business.
x x x . . . .
“Accordingly, the employer may resort to retrenchment in order to avert serious business losses. To justify such retrenchment, the following conditions must be present, namely:
The retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses;
The losses, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or, if only expected, are reasonably imminent;
The expected or actual losses must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence;
The retrenchment must be in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right to security of tenure; and
There must be fair and reasonable criteria m ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.”
A place where people are caught sniffing “shabu” or using illegal drugs does not automatically make that residence or place a drug den and that the person in charge of the same is guilty for maintaining a drug den as defined and punished under RA 9165. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Andanar and Garbo, G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021, the Supreme Court elaborated on the meaning of a drug den as follows:
For Garbo’s part, she was charged with illegal maintenance of a drug den under Section 6 of RA 9165. The offense requires the following elements: a) that the place is a den – a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; and b) that the accused maintains the said place.
It is not enough that dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. More than a finding that the dangerous drug is being used there, it must also be clearly shown that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold.
First, a drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among police officers.
People v. Galicia ordained that the prosecution must establish that the alleged drug den is a place where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer of the den. The word “regular” means doing the same thing in uniform intervals, or something that is a common occurrence.
Here, PO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that Garbo invited him inside her house where the sale of illegal drugs between him and Andanar took place. Thereafter, Garbo offered PO2 Antillon, Jr. that he could already use the drug he just bought for an additional fee of P20.00. If at all, this only proves an isolated illegal drug transaction involving SPO2 Antillon, Jr., Andanar, and Garbo. There was nothing on record, however, showing that Garbo’s house was frequently used as a drug den. Neither did the prosecution prove that Garbo’s house had a general reputation as such. Surely, the prosecution had only presented a singular occurrence of the so-called illegal drug activity in Garbo’s house. The same does not satisfy the requirement in Galicia. Garbo, therefore, cannot be considered a maintainer of drug den. Besides, the supposed corpus delicti was not even established in view of the clear violation of the chain of custody rule, compromising its integrity.
Second, SPO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that while inside Garbo’s house, he saw Gutierrez using shabu, thus, making Garbo’s house a drug den.
We disagree. At the moment SPO2 Antillon, Jr. saw Gutierrez allegedly sniffing something, he only assumed it was shabu. More, nothing in the records show that Gutierrez underwent a laboratory examination and was found positive for drug use. Thus, the Court will not convict an accused, sans any supporting evidence. Mere assumptions or conjectures cannot substitute the required quantum of evidence in criminal prosecution. In any case, a single isolated occasion where one sees another person sniffing shabu inside a residence, even if true, does not automatically convert that residence into a den. The element of regularity is conspicuously absent.
