jOy's dEtaiLs chocolates. pasta sleeping, malling, texting, beer, pizza, hanging around, flirting!!!!
someone nice,smart but fun to be with.
Any kind of mUsic!!
lord of the rings(triology), 10 thing i hate about you, bring it on, cayote ugly... got to believe,
mtv, starstruck, noontime shoW,...(",
reader's digest, novels ÃœFAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY CASE On December 17, 1978, petitioner Union filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a complaint against respondent University for non-payment of legal holiday pay and under-payment of the thirteenth [13th] month pay. On July 7, 1979, while the case was pending, the Union President, in his personal capacity, filed another complaint for violation of Pres. Dec. No. 451 against the same respondent. The two cases were forthwith consolidated and jointly heard and tried. On March 10, 1980, Labor Arbiter Ruben A. Aquino promulgated a decision, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder:RESPONSIVE TO THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby directed, within ten [10] days from receipt hereof, to: 1. To (sic) pay the paid legal holidays that it withdrew since January 14, 1976 up to the present; and 2. Pay the 13th month pay differential of complainant's for the covered period December 16, 1975 to December 17, 1978, date of filing of complaint for non-payment of legal holiday pay and under payment of the 13th month pay, and thereafter. Barred forever are money claims beyond three [3] years from the time the course (sic) of action occurred. Respondent's formula on transportation allowance which was deducted from the 13th month pay is thus subject to this prescriptive period, for purposes of computation of differentials for the 13th month pay. The claim under P. D. 451 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. [Annex " E " to Petition; Rollo, p. 55, 65-66]. Both parties appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. On September 18, 1984, the respondent Commission disposed of the appeal in the following manner: RESPONSIVE TO THE FOREGOING, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Ruben A. Aquino in the instant case dated March 10, 1980 is hereby modified in the sense that complainant's claims for legal holiday pay and 13th month pay are likewise dismissed for lack of merit and the dismissal of the claim under P.D. 451 is hereby affirmed en (sic) toto. [Annex "A" to Petition: Rollo, p. 24, 35]. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated September 29, 1984 was denied for lack of merit on November 8, 1984. Before this Court is the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Union assailing the abovementioned decision of the Commissioner.CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CASE This case originated from a complaint filed with the Regional Office No. VII of the Ministry of Labor on February 11, 1981 against petitioner Cebu Institute of Technology [CIT] by private respondents, Panfilo Canete, et al., teachers of CIT, for non-payment of: [a] cost of living allowances [COLA] under Pres. Dec. Nos. 525, 1123, 1614, 1678 and 1713; [b] thirteenth (13th) month pay differentials; and [c] service incentive leave. By virtue of an Order issued by the then Deputy Minister of Labor Carmelo C. Noriel, a labor-management committee composed of one representative each from the Ministry of Labor and Employment [MOLE], the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports [MECS], and two representatives each from CIT and from the teachers, was created. Said committee was to ascertain compliance with the legal requirements for the payment of COLA, thirteenth (13th) month pay and service incentive leave [Rollo, p. 84]. The position taken by CIT during the conference held by the labor-management committee was that it had paid the allowances mandated by various decrees but the same had been integrated in the teacher's hourly rate. It alleged that the payment of COLA by way of salary increases is in line with Pres. Dec. No. 451. It also claimed in its position paper that it had paid thirteenth month pay to its employees and that it was exempt from the payment of service incentive leave to its teachers who were employed on contract basis [Rollo, pp. 85-86].After the report and recommendation of the committee, herein public respondent, then Minister of Labor and Employment, issued the assailed Order dated September 29, 1981 and held that the basic hourly rate designated in the Teachers' Program is regarded as the basic hourly rate of teachers exclusive of the COLA, and that COLA should not be taken from the 60% incremental proceeds of the approved increase in tuition fee. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:PREMISES CONSIDERED, CIT is hereby ordered to pay its teaching staff the following: (1) COLA under P. D.'s 525 and 1123 from February 1978 up to 1981; (2) COLA under P. D.'s l6l4,1634,1678 and l7l3;and (3) Service incentive leave from l978 upto l981. CIT is further directed to integrate into the basic salaries of its teachers and (sic) COLA under P. D.'s 525 and 1123 starting on January 1981, pursuant to P. D. 1751. For purposes of integration, the hourly rate shown in its Teachers' Program for school year 198182 shall be considered as the basic hourly rate. SO ORDERED. Petitioner assails the aforesaid Order in this Special Civil Action of Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on December 7, 1981 against the enforcement of the questioned Order of the Minister of Labor and Employment.
my parents, my brother... (la lang!) Ãœ