Tsn liquidating corp
From the findings made by the Solicitor General, the pertinent facts may be summarized as follows: Respondent Francisco L. On May 23, 1983, LFC employee, Violeta Hanopol, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against complainant before the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment (MOLE). Respondent's telephone message apparently failed to reach the Labor Arbiter, because at the hearing on June 28, 1983, he considered the case submitted for decision on the basis of Hanopol's complaint and affidavit (Exh. Respondent Daria appealed the Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on August 23, 1983 (Exh. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. In the meantime, the middle of June 1984, respondent signified to management his intention to resign. So, on August 15, 1984, Hanopol filed a "Manifestation and Motion" praying that the earlier Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated July 29, 1983 be revived. San Juan thereafter resigned and sought the assistance of respondent in the preparation of his counteraffidavit in January 1985 (tsn. as previously scheduled."6 Since it was signed by both Hanopol and the respondent, the Solicitor General argues that the respondent's explanation is manifestly unsatisfactory. It is submitted that respondent's actuation was not warranted by the circumstances. After proper proceedings, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted its "Report and Recommendation," dated February 21, 1990 and received by the Court on February 26, 1990. After a month, on July 29, 1983, the Labor Arbiter issued a Decision directing LFC to pay Hanopol the total sum of P6,469.60 in labor benefits, on the basis of Hanopol's evidence alone. During the hearings in the Hanopol case on July 27, 1984 and August 8, 1984, no one appeared for complainant. On account of the gravity of the charge, respondent placed San Juan under preventive suspension, per his letter to him dated April 25, 1984 (Exh. On September 20, 1984, when respondent had already resigned, complainant sent a demand letter to San Juan requiring him to restitute the amount of P9,351.15 (Exh. Since he failed to pay the amount demanded, a complaint for estafa was lodged against him before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. The Constancia clearly states: "By agreement of the parties, case reset to June 17, 1983 at p.m.
Early morning and over-the-weekend UGs and DGs are up in our little room for those that want to check it out.
is now at $715,644 with $513,134 of that in cash, up from the prior week as I have been a net seller for weeks now.
These materials do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal or tax advice.
You should consult an attorney or tax advisor for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Udarbe and he immediately came across the abovementioned "Manifestation and Motion". 6) thereto, and on September 19, 1984, he followed this up with a position paper for LFC (Exh. However, the Labor Arbiter had already revived his earlier Decision dated July 29, 1983 in another Decision dated September 4, 1984, thereby prompting Atty. C) to its employee, Roberto San Juan, requiring him to submit a written explanation for his alleged double liquidation and unliquidated cash advances. D) was issued this time by complainant's internal auditor, Rosario L.