This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The CA found that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion since the decision lacked factual proof and also ignored established jurisprudence.[68] Thus, the CA concluded that the NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically in the exercise of its judgment. [69] The result of this error of jurisdiction was that the judgment of the NLRC was rendered void or at least voidable.[70] This is in sharp contrast to an error of judgment which is reversible only if it can be shown that prejudice has been caused thereby.[71] | |||||