6. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio Til 10 Landbank

8/17/2019 6. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio Til 10 Landbank

1/5

6. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, January 14, 2015

Facts:

Respondents ere e!ployees as per!anent "i#$t attendants o% Saudi Arabian

Airlines &Saudia' $ic$ is a %orei#n corp it$ o(ce in )anila. *$e respondents t$en

ere separated %ro! service %ro! various dates in 2006 by virtue o% resi#nation.

*$e respondents contended t$at t$ey ere ille#ally dis!issed %ro! e!ploy!entdue to t$eir pre#nancies and t$at t$ey +le t$eir resi#nation letters because o% t$e

t$reat o% ter!ination $ic$ ould entail loss o% bene+ts. Saudia ar#ued t$at under

t$eir !ploy!ent -ontract %or Fe!ale -abin Attendants i% t$e Air ostess beco!es

pre#nant at any ti!e durin# t$e ter! o% t$is contract, t$is s$all render $er

e!ploy!ent contract as void and s$e ill be ter!inated due to lac/ o% !edical

+tness.

ssue:

$et$er or not t$e respondents ere ille#ally ter!inated

eld:

3es, respondents ere ille#ally ter!inated. *$e respondents resi#nation lac/ed

voluntariness on t$eir part and t$e constructive dis!issal $appened $en t$ey

ere pre#nant and epectin# to incur cost on account o% c$ild delivery and in%ant

rearin#. *$e t$reat o% ter!ination upon t$eir %ailure to resi#n is enou#$ reason to

co!pel any person to abandon e!ploy!ent t$us resultin# in constructive dis!issal

$ic$ %urt$er a!ounts to ille#al ter!ination. Since t$e respondents ere ille#ally

ter!inated, t$ey ere entitled to bac/a#es, bene+ts %ro! t$e ti!e o% t$eir

ter!ination until +nality o% t$is decision, !oral and ee!plary da!a#es and

attorneys %ees.

. 7alcur8a vs *a!paron# Septe!ber 04, 2019

Facts:

*a!paron# as t$e re#istered oner o% a land$oldin# it$ an area o% 412, 004

s!. *$e San##unian# ;ayan o% 7illanueva, )isa!is

classi%yin# respondents land %ro! a#ricultural to industrial. Also, t$e CAR issued a

notice o% covera#e on 9 ?ove!ber 12 over 26,411 suare !eters out o% t$e

412,004 s! o% respondents land $ic$ ere aarded to t$e petitioners by virtueo% a -D


2/5

validity o% t$e -D


3/5

de%endants $ad re%used to pay lease rentals on t$e portions o% rice lands t$ey ere

tillin#. CARA; $eld t$at t$e land$oldin# ere outside t$e covera#e o% o% EC 2 and

RA 665 because t$e respondents does not on !ore t$an 5 $ectares o% t$e subect

land$oldin#s. *$e petitioners contended t$at it as t$e


4/5

aarded plantationM+led a petition %or certi+cation election in t$e


5/5

and & b' sub!it a real estate ta clearance to prove t$at t$ere ere no

encu!brances burdenin# t$e property and t$at t$e taes t$ereon $ad

been %ully paid until 12. *$e R*- ruled in %avor o% Santos, $oldin# t$at since Dand

1 as processed as an untitled property and t$e D;E $ad ad!itted in its petitions

%or ust co!pensation t$at Santos as t$e oner o% t$e untitled lands covered by

EC 2 as re"ected in t$e ta declarations, t$e D;E cannot !aintain an inconsistentposition by reuirin# Santos to prove $is oners$ip t$ereto.

ssue:

$et$er t$e R*- $ave acted it$ #rave abuse o% discretion in alloin# t$e release

o% t$e initial valuation o% lands 1 and 2 it$out sub!ittin# t$e docu!ents listed

under CAR A< ?o. 2, series o% 2005

$en to rec/on t$e aard o% 12 interest

eld:

?o, t$e leniency accorded by t$e R*- cannot be construed as a capricious eercise

o%N poer as it !erely epedited t$e procedure %or pay!ent $ic$ is in$erently

%airer under t$e circu!stances considerin# t$at: &a' Santos $as been Odeprived o%

$is ri#$t to enoy $is properties as early as 1B9, and $as not yet received any

co!pensation t$ere%or since t$enGO & b' t$e eistence o% t$e certi+cates o% title over

Dands 1 and 2 $ic$ t$e D;E insists to be sub!itted $ad not been su(ciently

establis$edG&c' t$e D;E $ad udicially ad!itted, t$at Santos is t$e oner o% Dands 1

and 2 $ic$ ere identi+ed as covered by ta declarationsGBB and &d' co!pliance

it$ t$e reuired docu!ents !ay still be directed be%ore t$e %ull pay!ent o% t$e

correct ust co!pensation $ic$, up to t$is ti!e, $as not yet been +nallydeter!ined. )oreover, as aptly pointed out by t$e -A, SantosN %ailure to produce t$e

titles to Dands 1 and 2 as not !otivated by any obstinate re%usal to abide by t$e

reuire!ents but due to i!pedi!ents beyond $is

control.

Accordin#ly, t$e aard o% telve percent &12P' annual interest on t$e unpaid

balance o% t$e ust co!pensation %or Dand 9 s$ould be co!puted %ro! t$e ti!e o%

ta/in#.

Coctrine:

t is doctrinal t$at t$e concept o% ust co!pensation conte!plates o% ust and ti!elypay!ent. t e!braces not only t$e correct deter!ination o% t$e a!ount to be paid

to t$e landoner, but also t$e pay!ent o% t$e land it$in a reasonable ti!e %ro! its

ta/in#, as ot$erise, co!pensation cannot

be considered Oust,O %or t$e oner is !ade to suQer t$e conseuence o% bein#

i!!ediately deprived o% $is land $ile bein# !ade to ait %or years be%ore actually

receivin# t$e a!ount necessary to cope it$ $is loss

Documents

6. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio Til 10 Landbank