PNOC-Energy Development Corp. v. NLRC G.R. No. 100947, May 31, 1993Full description
APB AHB AXI DiferenceFull description
Full description
Descripción: pandora vs zabbix
Descripción: dig
perbandingan acrylic, kaca dengan polycarbonat, keuntungan dan kerugian serta aplikasinya
kumpulan bahan
OBDeleven PRO vs VCDS ( VAG COM ) vs VCP ( Vag Can Pro) vs Carista vs Carly for VAG vs Launch EasyDiag supported functions CompareFull description
Sandingan Sistem Manajemen Keamanan Informasi vs Sistem Manajemen Anti Penyuapan vs Sistem Manajemen Mutu vs Sistem Manajemen LayananFull description
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
digestedFull description
Comparison of Petrol diesel,lpg & CNG run vehicle cars
VS Aristóteles - EnsayosDescripción completa
Descripción: P
difference between guilty and plead guilty under indian evidence act and inherent powers of the high courtFull description
vdb
cabague
G.R. No. 141707
May 7, 2002
CAYO G. GAMOGAMO, petitioner, CAYO vs. PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORP., respondent. Facts: On 23 January 1963, Petitioner was frst employed with the Department o ealth !DO" as Dental #ide. e remained employed at the DO or ourteen years until he resi$ned. On 9 %ovem&er 19'', petitioner was hired as (ompany dentist &y )*+--/O, a private domesti( (orporation. +u&se0uently, respondent P%O/ +hippin$ and ransport /orporation a(0uired and too over the shippin$ &usiness o )*+--/O, and petitioner was amon$ those who opted to &e a&sor&ed &y the espondent. +ometime in 199, petitioner re0uested to &e in(luded in the ne4t retren(hment s(hedule. owever, his re0uest was turned down. -ventually, petitioner retired ater servin$ the espondent and )*+--/O or 1' years and 5 months upon rea(hin$ his 6 th &irthday. e re(eived a retirement pay whi(h is e0uivalent to one month pay or every year o servi(e and other &enefts. he (ases o Dr. o$elio . 7uena and 8rs. )u /. eyes, who were holdin$ permanent:non;redundant positions &ut were willin$ to &e retren(hed under the pro$ram were retren(hed and paid a 2;month separation pay or every year o servi(e under espondent
Issu: >hethe >het herr or no nott pe peti titi tion oner< er
H!": %o. espondente (annot uphold petitioner
not 0ualiy or &enefts in either or &oth o the +ystems. ere, petitioner is 0ualifed to re(eive &enefts $ranted &y the Aovernment +e(urity =nsuran(e +ystem !A+=+".4
