pfizer vs galan

3
Pfizer Inc., Ma. Angelica B. Lleander and Sandra Webb vs. Edwin V. Galan GR No, 143389, May 25 2001 Facts: Edwin Galan was initially hired by petitioner Pfizer Inc. as a medical representative and later on promoted as the District Manager for Mindanao. In September 1997, respondent was recalled to Manila to meet with his superiors. In the meeting, a memorandum was issued requiring him to explain his alleged unauthorized use of, and questionable expense claims made on, the company vehicle, as well as the doubtful liquidation of his cash advance of US 5,000. In the meantime, he was placed in a preventive suspension. On October 1998, he received a Notice of Termination signed by petitioner Lleander, the cause of which was loss of trust and confidence. Galan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC RAB No. 9 in Zamboanga City. The LA declared that respondent was illegally dismissed and is entitled to monetary award. Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC CDO but the same was affirmed and entry of judgment was made. Before the issuance of the writ of execution, petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Also, the Verification that was executed by Cleofe Legaspi (Employment Specialist) was not properly executed. Petitioners filed a MR but the same was denied. Issues: (1) Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of being failed out of time. (2) Whether or not the Verification executed by Cleofe Legaspi sufficient. Ruling: (1) NO. By virtue of the retroactive effect of the amendment of Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure introduced by Resolution in AM No 00-2-03- SC, which allows the filing of a petition for certiorari within sixty days from notice of the denial of a MR, the filing of petitioners’ petition before the CA was on time. Indeed, there is no dispute that their petition was filed on the sixtieth day from notice of the denial of their MR. (2) YES. The SC ruled that the purpose of verification was served in the instant case. Cleofe Legaspi coordinated and actually participated in the investigation of the

Upload: shaniemielle-torres

Post on 12-Jan-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

digest

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pfizer vs Galan

Pfizer Inc., Ma. Angelica B. Lleander and Sandra Webb vs. Edwin V. GalanGR No, 143389, May 25 2001

Facts: Edwin Galan was initially hired by petitioner Pfizer Inc. as a medical representative and later on promoted as the District Manager for Mindanao. In September 1997, respondent was recalled to Manila to meet with his superiors. In the meeting, a memorandum was issued requiring him to explain his alleged unauthorized use of, and questionable expense claims made on, the company vehicle, as well as the doubtful liquidation of his cash advance of US 5,000. In the meantime, he was placed in a preventive suspension. On October 1998, he received a Notice of Termination signed by petitioner Lleander, the cause of which was loss of trust and confidence.

Galan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC RAB No. 9 in Zamboanga City. The LA declared that respondent was illegally dismissed and is entitled to monetary award. Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC CDO but the same was affirmed and entry of judgment was made.

Before the issuance of the writ of execution, petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Also, the Verification that was executed by Cleofe Legaspi (Employment Specialist) was not properly executed. Petitioners filed a MR but the same was denied.

Issues: (1) Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of being failed out of time.(2) Whether or not the Verification executed by Cleofe Legaspi sufficient.

Ruling: (1) NO. By virtue of the retroactive effect of the amendment of Section 4, Rule 65 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure introduced by Resolution in AM No 00-2-03- SC, which allows the filing of a petition for certiorari within sixty days from notice of the denial of a MR, the filing of petitioners’ petition before the CA was on time. Indeed, there is no dispute that their petition was filed on the sixtieth day from notice of the denial of their MR.

(2) YES. The SC ruled that the purpose of verification was served in the instant case. Cleofe Legaspi coordinated and actually participated in the investigation of the administrative charges against respondent. As such, she was in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.

Shaniemielle Samantha S. TorresFourth Year- Juris Doctor

Page 2: Pfizer vs Galan

Mactan- Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs Court of AppealsGR No. 139495, November 27, 2000

Facts: Prior to the instant case, the RP file an expropriation proceeding on several parcels of land which included Lot 941 for the expansion and improvement of Lahug Airport and the same was granted. The herein petitioner did not appeal the decision in the expropriation proceeding but instead accepted the compensation amounting to P34, 415. However, when the Cebu- Mactan International Airport started its operation, Lahug Airport ceased to operate.

Thereafter, petitioner Chiongbian filed a complaint for reconveyance of Lot 941 with the RTC Cebu and the same was granted on the condition that the expropriation price be reimbursed to the RP.

Aggrieved, MCIAA appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. MR denied.

MCIAA filed a petition before the SC. Chiongbian prayed that the petition be dismissed on the ground that the Verification and Certification on Non- Forum Shopping executed by the MCIAA was signed by Colonel Marcelino Codova whose appointment as Asst. General Manager of MCIAA was disapproved by the CSC.

Issue: Whether or not the Verification and Certification on Non Forum Shopping sufficient.

Held: The same is sufficient. The SC ruled that Colonel Cordova signed the Verification and Certification on Non Forum Shopping as Acting General Manager of the MCIAA, pursuant to Office Order No. 5322-99 dated September 10, 1999, issued by the General Manager of the MCIAA. Colonel Cordova did not sign the Verification and Certification on Non Forum Shopping pursuant to his appointment as Asst. General Manager of the MCIAA, which was later disapproved by the Commission on Appointments. This fact has not been disputed by petitioner Chiongbian.

Shaniemielle Samantha S. TorresFourth Year- Juris Doctor