So Ordered. Dated: The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Pallmeyer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, et al., Plaintiffs,
So Ordered. Judge Magistrate Dated
So Ordered. It is hereby certified by this Board that the above language is a copy of the Order entered upon its journal in this case. Section 119.12 of the Ohio Revised Code authorizes an appeal from this Order. An order that denied admission to an examination, or denied the issuance or renewal of a license or registration, or revoked or suspended a license, may be appealed to the court of common pleas in the Ohio county of your place of business or in your Ohio county of residence. Any other order may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. Such an appeal, setting forth the order appealed from and the grounds of the appeal, must be commenced by the filing of a Notice of Appeal with both the State Board of Pharmacy and the appropriate court within fifteen (15) days after the mailing of this Order and in accordance with the requirements of Section 119.12 of the Ohio Revised Code. CERTIFIED MAIL/Return Receipt 0000 0000 0000 9804 6282 BY ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY ORDER MAILED & EFFECTIVE: OCTOBER 12, 2006 By:
So Ordered. Date: XXX. XXXX X. MARTINEZ
So Ordered. THE XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX X. URBANSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REVIEWED AND AGREED TO BY: XXXXXX X. XXXXXX UNITED STATES ATTORNEY _/s/Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Virginia
So Ordered. XxxxxxxxXXxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, XxxxxxXXxxxxxx, and Xxxxxx, XX., concur. THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARBITER XXXXXXXX X. XXXXXXX AND XXXXXXX X. XXXXXX, respondents. XXXXX, X.: The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the following orders of the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NLRC") for having been issued without or with excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion:2
So Ordered. On 18 May 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,18 which was denied in an Order19 dated 16 August 2007. Xxxxxxxxx, petitioner appealed to the CA on 19 December 2007.20 On 17 March 2010, the CA rendered a Decision21 in favor of private respondent, as follows: In fine, public respondent SSC had sufficient basis in concluding that private respondent’s husband was an employee of petitioner and should, therefore, be entitled to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Law. Having ruled in favor of the existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the late Xxxxx Xxxx, it is no longer necessary to dwell on the other issues raised. Resultantly, for his failure to report Xxxxx Xxxx for compulsory social security coverage, petitioner should bear the consequences thereof. Under the law, an employer who fails to report his employee for social security coverage is liable to [1] pay the benefits of those who die, become disabled, get sick or reach retirement age; [2] pay all unpaid contributions plus a penalty of three percent per month; and [3] be held liable for a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. But an 17 CA rollo, pp. 79-87. 18 Xxxxx, pp. 108-110. 19 Id. at 107. 20 Id. at 37-52. 21 Id. at 54-65. employee is still entitled to social security benefits even is (sic) his employer fails or refuses to remit his contribution to the SSS. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. In holding thus, the CA gave credence to the findings of the SSC. The appellate court held that it “does not follow that a person who does not observe normal hours of work cannot be deemed an employee.”22 For one, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power. In this case, petitioner exercised his control through an overseer in the person of Xxxxx Xxxxxx, the tenant on petitioner’s land.23 Most important, petitioner entered into a Compromise Agreement with private respondent and expressly admitted therein that he was the employer of the deceased.24 The CA interpreted this admission as a declaration against interest, pursuant to Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.25 Hence, this petition. Public respondents SSS26 and SSC27 filed their Comments on 31 January 2011 and 28 February 2011, respectively, while private respondent filed her Comment on 14 March 2011.28 O...
