Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Cyril H. Llamas
    The petitioner, Waterous Drug Corporation, terminated the employment of Catolico for dishonest acts involving the overpricing of medicine. An investigation found that Catolico received a check for the difference in overpricing from the supplier, though Catolico denied this. The NLRC dismissed the case finding the check was inadmissible evidence due to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the court ruled the check was admissible, as constitutional protections do not apply to searches by private individuals but only the state. The court found Catolico could be civilly or criminally liable for the actions of the private individual who discovered the check.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Cyril H. Llamas
    37 views1 page
    The petitioner, Waterous Drug Corporation, terminated the employment of Catolico for dishonest acts involving the overpricing of medicine. An investigation found that Catolico received a check for the difference in overpricing from the supplier, though Catolico denied this. The NLRC dismissed the case finding the check was inadmissible evidence due to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the court ruled the check was admissible, as constitutional protections do not apply to searches by private individuals but only the state. The court found Catolico could be civilly or criminally liable for the actions of the private individual who discovered the check.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Waterous Drug Corporation, terminated the employment of Catolico for dishonest acts involving the overpricing of medicine. An investigation found that Catolico received a check for the difference in overpricing from the supplier, though Catolico denied this. The NLRC dismissed the case finding the check was inadmissible evidence due to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the court ruled the check was admissible, as constitutional protections do not apply to searches by private individuals but only the state. The court found Catolico could be civilly or criminally liable for the actions of the private individual who discovered the check.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Cyril H. Llamas
    The petitioner, Waterous Drug Corporation, terminated the employment of Catolico for dishonest acts involving the overpricing of medicine. An investigation found that Catolico received a check for the difference in overpricing from the supplier, though Catolico denied this. The NLRC dismissed the case finding the check was inadmissible evidence due to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the court ruled the check was admissible, as constitutional protections do not apply to searches by private individuals but only the state. The court found Catolico could be civilly or criminally liable for the actions of the private individual who discovered the check.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Waterous Drug Corporation v.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997

    FACTS: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation.

    An irregularity in the transaction between Catolico and YSP Inc., a supplier of medicine, was discovered
    by petitioner’s control clerk which involved the sale of 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit.
    Previous POs issued to YSP Inc., however, showed that the price per bottle is P320.00. Verification was
    made to YSP, Inc. to determine the discrepancy and it was found that the cost per bottle was indeed
    overpriced. YSP, Inc. Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) confirmed that the difference
    represents refund of jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets which was paid to Catolico through a
    check sent through an envelope addressed to Catolico. Catolico denied having received such check;
    however, Saldana, the pharmacy clerk, opened the envelope and confirmed that there was a check
    amounting to P640.00 for Catolico.

    Petitioner ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of dishonesty. NLRC dismissed the petition
    declaring that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III
    of the Constitution.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the check is admissible as evidence.

    HELD: The court answered in the affirmative. The court finds no reason to revise the doctrine laid down
    in People vs. Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and
    seizures perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens
    have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion
    gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities

    You might also like