Socorro vs Reyes

Facts:

Petitioner Socorro filed a case of unjust vexation against respondent Reyes when the latter humiliated
her in manner offensive of the petitioner’s dignity, personality, good customs and public morals. A
recording of the incident was recorded by Socorro as material evidence for the case presented.
However, Reyes assailed that the audio recording was contradictory of the Anti-Wiretapping law and
thusly may not be used as material evidence.

Issue:

Whether or not the provision stated in the Anti-Wiretapping law as cited private communication is the
same as private conversation.

Held:

Whereas the court ruled in favor of the respondent and the decision from the CA is affirmed. Following
the application of the principle of legislative intent whereby the provision is clear and unambiguous, the
interpretation of the law shall stand. In the given case, the word “communication” is interpreted as that
would include “conversation” under its declarations. As the law itself is clear that seeks to penalize
unlawful recording of private communications, the mere act would violate the same. Further is that the
intent of the law in penalizing distinct acts would be absurd as the purpose is to broaden the scope of
the law to include non-verbal or written communications.

Globe Mackay vs NLRC

Facts:

Private respondent Salazar was illegally dismissed following a case whereby her co-employees
unlawfully and without authority misused and appropriated air-conditioning units from the petitioner.
During the investigation it was found out that the private respondent was found involved in the illegal
transaction. Petitioner then ordered for Salazar to be suspended and that the latter furnished letters to
explain the incident. Three days later, Salazar filed for a case of illegal suspension and dismissal with the
court. Subsequently she was dismiss from her employment following inability to refute the allegations.
The labor arbiter then in a decision declared that Salazar be reinstated in the employment with
appropriate benefits and damages. However when petitioner appealed, the NLRC awarded only the
reinstatement without the corresponding benefits hence the instant petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the labor arbiter committed grave abuse in refuting the provisions on the Labor Code for
instances of dismissal.

Held:
Whereas upon the review of the court they denied the instant petition, the court affirmed the order of
the labor arbiter awarding the respondent reinstatement with full benefits. The court on this matter
resolved that the legislative intent of the provisions Labor Code for reinstatement of illegally dismissed
employee is not to be impugned. The intention of the law is to provide the labor sector full protection
and equality. The framers of the law both on the constitution and the labor code seeks to rectify
unlawful dismissal and award the offended party equal justice. In the case provided that the provisions
is explicit on the rules governing the application of the law as far as reinstatement to works and benefits
awarded for such dismissal, the rule is that all that is included in the provision must apply.

Basbacio vs Office of the Secretary

Facts:

The case for instant petition deals with the application of the provision under RA 7309 whereby the
petitioner asserted that he should be awarded moral damages in sums of money upon the acquittal of
the criminal charges brought before him. The petitioner on this case was unjustly imprisoned, and upon
their appeal was later on found out that the evidence presented did not establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Petitioner further assailed that the basis for the instant petition is that the rules is not
subject to interpretation since it is clear that persons who are unjustly imprisoned are subject to the
awards indicated therein.

Issue:

Whether or not the interpretation of the law is repugnant from the decision made by the court
dismissing the awarding of damages to the petitioner.

Held

Whereas the court in their review dismissed the instant petition. Under the provision as cited, RA 7309
states that only those unjustly imprisoned based on unfair judgement or innocence. It is clear that the
prior acquittal was based on substantive evidence of guilt and not that of unfair trial. The court further
expounded on the intent of the law that it is clear that the person who under took penalties are only
victims of unjust imprisonment and as such will be compensated. If the legislative intent was to award
and compensate damages for every claimant, then all of those who filed for acquittal regardless of
circumstance of whom succeeds in their claim will make the law moot and academe.