Lawyerly

GR No. 202645

2015-08-05

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Preliminarily, it should be pointed out that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[42] The Court is not a trier of facts[43] and does not routinely re-examine the evidence presented by the contending parties.[44] Nevertheless, the divergence in the findings of fact by the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and that of the CA on the other - as in this case - is a recognized exception for the Court to open and scrutinize the records to determine whether the CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioners were illegally dismissed.[45]

GR No. 211263

2015-08-05

OKS DESIGNTECH v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

It is well-settled that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[29] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely examine the evidence presented by the contending parties.[30] Nevertheless, the divergence in the findings of fact by the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and that of the CA, on the other, is a recognized exception for the Court to open and scrutinize the records to determine whether the CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that respondent was not illegally dismissed.[31]

GR No. 211872

2015-06-22

ROMIL T. OLAYBAL v. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA

MENDOZA, J.

Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts, hence, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[20] The findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court in the exercise of its power of review, as it is not its function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. It is a recognized exception, however, that when the CA findings are contrary to those of the NLRC and the LA, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[21]

GR No. 201298

2014-02-05

RAUL C. COSARE v. BROADCOM ASIA

REYES, J.

Given the circumstances, the Court agrees with Cosare's claim of constructive and illegal dismissal. "[C]onstructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit."[51] In Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Incorporated,[52] it was explained:The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.[53] (Citation omitted)

GR No. 201298

2014-02-05

RAUL C. COSARE v. BROADCOM ASIA

REYES, J.

The clear intent of the respondents to find fault in Cosare was also manifested by their persistent accusation that Cosare abandoned his post, allegedly signified by his failure to report to work or file a leave of absence beginning April 1, 2009. This was even the subject of a memo[56] issued by Arevalo to Cosare on April 14, 2009, asking him to explain his absence within 48 hours from the date of the memo. As the records clearly indicated, however, Arevalo placed Cosare under suspension beginning March 30, 2009. The suspension covered access to any and all company files/records and the use of the assets of the company, with warning that his failure to comply with the memo would be dealt with drastic management action. The charge of abandonment was inconsistent with this imposed suspension. "Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: '(1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer- employee relationship manifested by some overt act.'"[57] Cosare's failure to report to work beginning April 1, 2009 was neither voluntary nor indicative of an intention to sever his employment with Broadcom. It was illogical to be requiring him to report for work, and imputing fault when he failed to do so after he was specifically denied access to all of the company's assets. As correctly observed by the NLRC:[T]he Respondent[s] had charged [Cosare] of abandoning his employment beginning on April 1, 2009. However[,] the show-cause letter dated March 3[0], 2009 (Annex "F", ibid) suspended [Cosare] from using not only the equipment but the "assets" of Respondent [Broadcom]. This insults rational thinking because the Respondents tried to mislead us and make [it appear] that [Cosare] failed to report for work when they had in fact had [sic] placed him on suspension. x x x.[58]

GR No. 178564

2014-01-15

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

The Court's jurisdiction in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[45]

GR No. 185549

2013-08-07

VICENTE ANG v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[51] It is a "dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not."[52] Constructive dismissal may likewise exist if an "act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."[53] "Constructive dismissal exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer."[54] "The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances."[55]

GR No. 199932

2013-07-03

CAMILO A. ESGUERRA v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES

REYES, J.

Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts hence, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[30] In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court and it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, it is a recognized exception that when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC and LA, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[31]

GR No.187722

2013-06-10

SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. S

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

However, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is when there resides a conflict between the findings of facts of the NLRC and of the CA. In such instance, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts,[44] as in this case. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to examine the cause and procedure attendant to the termination of Gonzaga's employment.

GR No. 192826

2013-02-27

PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS v. MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

At the outset, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. The rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency,[23] as in this case. There is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[24]

GR No. 177167

2013-01-17

NELSON B. GAN v. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES

PERALTA, J.

To begin with, constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits.[32] It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[33] There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.[34] The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.[35]

GR No. 191281

2012-12-05

BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

There are, however, recognized exceptions[13] to this rule such as when there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA.[14]In this case, the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC. There is, therefore, a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[15]

GR No. 192076

2012-11-21

MICHELLE T. TUASON v. BANK OF COMMERCE

MENDOZA, J.

The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.[38]

	GR No. 202645 2015-08-05	FORTUNATO R. BARON v. EPE TRANSPORT PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Preliminarily, it should be pointed out that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[42] The Court is not a trier of facts[43] and does not routinely re-examine the evidence presented by the contending parties.[44] Nevertheless, the divergence in the findings of fact by the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and that of the CA on the other - as in this case - is a recognized exception for the Court to open and scrutinize the records to determine whether the CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioners were illegally dismissed.[45]
	GR No. 211263 2015-08-05	OKS DESIGNTECH v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-settled that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[29] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely examine the evidence presented by the contending parties.[30] Nevertheless, the divergence in the findings of fact by the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and that of the CA, on the other, is a recognized exception for the Court to open and scrutinize the records to determine whether the CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that respondent was not illegally dismissed.[31]
	GR No. 211872 2015-06-22	ROMIL T. OLAYBAL v. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA MENDOZA, J.
Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts, hence, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[20] The findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court in the exercise of its power of review, as it is not its function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. It is a recognized exception, however, that when the CA findings are contrary to those of the NLRC and the LA, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[21]
	GR No. 201298 2014-02-05	RAUL C. COSARE v. BROADCOM ASIA REYES, J.
Given the circumstances, the Court agrees with Cosare's claim of constructive and illegal dismissal. "[C]onstructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit."[51] In Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Incorporated,[52] it was explained:The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.[53] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 201298 2014-02-05	RAUL C. COSARE v. BROADCOM ASIA REYES, J.
The clear intent of the respondents to find fault in Cosare was also manifested by their persistent accusation that Cosare abandoned his post, allegedly signified by his failure to report to work or file a leave of absence beginning April 1, 2009. This was even the subject of a memo[56] issued by Arevalo to Cosare on April 14, 2009, asking him to explain his absence within 48 hours from the date of the memo. As the records clearly indicated, however, Arevalo placed Cosare under suspension beginning March 30, 2009. The suspension covered access to any and all company files/records and the use of the assets of the company, with warning that his failure to comply with the memo would be dealt with drastic management action. The charge of abandonment was inconsistent with this imposed suspension. "Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: '(1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer- employee relationship manifested by some overt act.'"[57] Cosare's failure to report to work beginning April 1, 2009 was neither voluntary nor indicative of an intention to sever his employment with Broadcom. It was illogical to be requiring him to report for work, and imputing fault when he failed to do so after he was specifically denied access to all of the company's assets. As correctly observed by the NLRC:[T]he Respondent[s] had charged [Cosare] of abandoning his employment beginning on April 1, 2009. However[,] the show-cause letter dated March 3[0], 2009 (Annex "F", ibid) suspended [Cosare] from using not only the equipment but the "assets" of Respondent [Broadcom]. This insults rational thinking because the Respondents tried to mislead us and make [it appear] that [Cosare] failed to report for work when they had in fact had [sic] placed him on suspension. x x x.[58]
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Court's jurisdiction in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[45]
	GR No. 185549 2013-08-07	VICENTE ANG v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[51] It is a "dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not."[52] Constructive dismissal may likewise exist if an "act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."[53] "Constructive dismissal exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer."[54] "The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances."[55]
	GR No. 199932 2013-07-03	CAMILO A. ESGUERRA v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES REYES, J.
Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts hence, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[30] In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court and it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, it is a recognized exception that when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC and LA, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[31]
	GR No.187722 2013-06-10	SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. S PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
However, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is when there resides a conflict between the findings of facts of the NLRC and of the CA. In such instance, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts,[44] as in this case. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to examine the cause and procedure attendant to the termination of Gonzaga's employment.
	GR No. 192826 2013-02-27	PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS v. MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. The rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency,[23] as in this case. There is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[24]
	GR No. 177167 2013-01-17	NELSON B. GAN v. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
To begin with, constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits.[32] It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[33] There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.[34] The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.[35]
	GR No. 191281 2012-12-05	BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There are, however, recognized exceptions[13] to this rule such as when there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA.[14]In this case, the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC. There is, therefore, a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[15]
	GR No. 192076 2012-11-21	MICHELLE T. TUASON v. BANK OF COMMERCE MENDOZA, J.
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.[38]

MARIO B. DIMAGAN v. DACWORKS UNITED