Cayetano vs. Monsod G.R. No.

100113 September 3, 1991

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Practice of law means any
activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience and to engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession.
Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

Avelino vs Cuenco, GR No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Ruling:
In view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy and the
constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not
be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. Senators have the liberty to select their
officers and/or reinstate them; hence, if Avelino wants to be the presiding officer of the Senate,
he should take it up there, not the Supreme Court.
Facts:
Senate President Avelino left the Chair and exited the session hall. Senators who
remained went on with the session, voted to declare the vacant position of the Senate President
and, thereafter, designated respondent Senator Cuenco as the Acting Senate President.
Senator Avelino prayed for the Court to declare him the rightful Senate President and to
oust respondent Senate Cuenco.

Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051 (2004)

Ruling:
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but
an independent contractor. Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an
employee of ABS-CBN. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as
control.
Facts:
Respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation signed an Agreement with the Mel and
Jay Management and Development Corporation, where MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA's
services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.
Mr. Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of recent events concerning his programs and
career.
SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the
Employees Stock Option Plan; while, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no
employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. vs. ADVIENTO G.R. No. 171212 August 4, 2014
Ruling:
It should be stressed that respondent’s claim for damages is specifically grounded on
petitioner’s gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its
employees — a case of quasi-delict. Where the resolution of the dispute requires expertise, not in
labor management relations nor in wage structures and other terms and conditions of
employment, but rather in the application of the general civil law, such claim falls outside the
area of competence of expertise ordinarily ascribed to the LA and the NLRC.
Facts:
Respondent, Engr. Adviento, was hired by petitioner to maintain its facilities. Respondent
filed a complaint with the RTC alleging that he contracted with occupational disease by reason
of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him with safe, healthy, and workable
environment. Petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground that it is within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

Wassmer vs. Velez G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964

Ruling:
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the
matrimony is about to be solemnized is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for
which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
Facts:
All the necessary preparations were undertaken for the marriage of Francisco Velez and
Beatriz Wassmer. Francisco never showed up and Beatriz subsequently sued Francisco for
damages, where judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff moral and exemplary
damages. Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to
law, as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to
marry.