PREFARATORY STATEMENT Lex prospicit, non respicit. The law looks forward, not backward. CONTENTION I.

THE 2012 SM ! " #$LT% M &$ L SH'$L! &'T (E )ET)' #TI*EL% ++LIE! (E# $SE IT ""E#TS *ESTE! )I,HTS. ARGUMENTS I. THE 2012 SM ! " #$LT% M &$ L SH'$L! &'T (E )ET)' #TI*EL% ++LIE! (E# $SE IT ""E#TS *ESTE! )I,HTS. rt. - of the &ew #ode states, /Laws shall ha.e no retroacti.e effect, 0nless the contrar1 is pro.ided.2 ,enerall1, laws are not allowed to operate retroacti.el1 beca0se it i3pairs so3e .ested ri4hts. .ested ri4ht or interest 3a1 be said to 3ean so3e ri4ht or interest in propert1 that has beco3e fixed or established and is no lon4er open to do0bt or contro.ers1. Castro v. Sagales Co v. CA, discusses the prospective nature of statues Geslani v. NLRC, rejects the contention of a dismissed employee that the New Regulations should govern! the Court said the anual has no retroactive effect.

anual of

The "ac0lt1 Man0al is an enforceable contract, which, b1 definition, 55555 6 rt. 1708, &ew #ode9. In "aleon v. #an, citing $$$$$$$$$, the S0pre3e #o0rt held that a contract is the law between the parties. %.S. &urisprudence where the 'aculty (and)oo* is treated as an enforcea)le contract. +reiner,Sanders v. Georgetown %niversity, 11: ". S0pp. 2d 1 6!.!.#. 1;;;9. The co0rt held that a fac0lt1 handbook /defines the ri4hts and obli4ations of the e3plo1ee and e3plo1er, and is a contract enforceable b1 the co0rts2 6<0otin4 cConnell v. (oward %niversity9. -a*aes v. George .ashington %niversity /aul v. (oward, fac0lt1 handbook p0blished in 1;:0 and still in effect at the ti3e of application for ten0re was a bindin4 contract of e3plo13ent for a ten0re decision.

Therefore a "ac0lt1 Man0al is a law, and is therefore shall ha.e no retroacti.e effect, 0nless the contrar1 is pro.ided. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful