Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR C. LIRIO v. WILMER D. GENOVIA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
The four-fold test[180] can be used in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The elements of the four-fold test are the following: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control, which is the most important element.[181]
	GR No. 146376 2014-04-23	RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Now as to whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman was correct in not at all investigating Junia is not for the Court to decide in this Petition. Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[53] And, as had been previously discussed herein, without evidence that the Office of the Ombudsman exercised its discretion capriciously and whimsically or arbitrarily and despotically in excluding Junia from the Order dated June 6, 2000, there can be no grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 182072 2013-06-28	UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO PERALTA, J.
The power of the CA to review NLRC decisions has already been thoroughly explained and clarified by the Court in several cases,[23] to wit: The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission. This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.[24]