G.R. Nos. 142732-33             December 4, 2007

FACTS:

In 1992, Genuino was employed by Citibank as Treasury Sales Division Head with the rank of Assistant Vice-President.  Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her with “knowledge and/or involvement” in transactions “which were irregular or even fraudulent.” In the same letter, Genuino was informed she was under preventive suspension. Genuino demanded for a bill of particulars regarding the charges against him. 

However the letters did not specify the extent of Genuino’s alleged knowledge and participation in the diversion of bank’s clients’ funds, manner of diversion, and amounts involved; the acts attributed to Genuino that conflicted with the bank’s interests; and the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregular transactions. 

Genuino’s employment was terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1) serious misconduct, (2) willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against the bank.

G.R. No. 175251. May 30, 2011

FACTS:

Luna filed a complaint before the Executive Labor Arbiter, alleging that he continuously rendered services as a warehouseman and a timekeeper in every construction project undertaken by Allado Construction. Sometime in 2001, he was given a travel order to proceed to [respondents’] main office in Davao City for reassignment. Upon arrival at the office,  he was ordered to sign several sets of “Contract of Project Employment”. He refused to sign the said contracts. Because of his refusal, he was not given a reassignment or any other work.

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that petitioner applied for a leave of absence which was granted. Upon expiration of his leave, he was advised to report to the company’s project in Sarangani Province. However, he refused and claimed instead that he had been dismissed illegally.

Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint finding that he was deemed to have resigned but ordered Allado Construction to pay him the amount of P18,000.00 by way of financial assistance. Only respondents interposed an appeal with the NLRC,  purely for the purpose of questioning the validity of the grant of financial assistance made by the Labor Arbiter.

FACTS

Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court.

The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It opined that under the nationality principle, Manalo’s cannot file a petition for divorce in court because they have no right to divorce. Hence, the divorce decree which she obtained under Japanese law cannot be given effect.

FACTS:

Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen,  who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas. When he found that his wife was having an affair, Gerbert filed a petition for divorce in Canada; and was granted. 

After 2 years, Gerbert found a new love and decided to marry. He then filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved. RTC denied the petition and concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.  It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, in order for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.

Gerbert considers himself as a proper party, vested with sufficient legal interest, to institute the case, as there is a possibility that he might be prosecuted for bigamy if he marries his Filipina fiancée in the Philippines since two marriage certificates, involving him, would be on file with the Civil Registry Office.