Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATHANIEL OLACAO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
In Olacao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[19] we also allowed the belated appeal of the appellant because of the injustice that would result if the appeal would be dismissed. We found that the subject matter in issue in that case had already been settled with finality in another case and the eventual dismissal of the appeal would have had the effect of ordering the appellant to make reparation to the appellee twice.
	GR No. 164640 2008-06-13	CYNTHIA GANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[26] we ordered the Court of Appeals to entertain an appeal filed six days after the expiration of the reglementary period; while in Siguenza v. Court of Appeals, [27] we accepted an appeal filed thirteen days late. Likewise, in Olacao v. NLRC,[28] we affirmed the respondent Commission's order giving due course to a tardy appeal "to forestall the grant of separation pay twice" since the issue of separation pay had been judicially settled with finality in another case. All of the aforequoted rulings were reiterated in our 2001 decision in the case of Equitable PCI Bank v. Ku.[29]
	GR No. 159641 2007-10-15	CALTEX v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, we find merit in petitioner's claim that private respondent should return the amount of P206,737.65 representing ex-gratia benefit paid only to terminated employees on account of the redundancy program. While we note that this matter is raised only for the first time, we have ample authority to review and resolve it if we find the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order[34] to arrive at a just decision in the case. The ex-gratia benefit should be returned following the principle against unjust enrichment which is held applicable in labor cases.[35]
	GR NO. 155207 2005-04-29	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Olacao v. NLRC[20] for example, the NLRC had discovered that the separation pay awarded by the Labor Arbiter had already been paid by the employer. Since a modification of the Labor Arbiter's Decision was the only way to forestall the grant of separation pay twice, the NLRC allowed the appeal perfected only on the twelfth (12th) day.[21] In Cosico, Jr. v. NLRC,[22] the employer timely posted the bond based on the monetary award for back wages and thirteenth month pay, but excluding the exorbitant award for moral and exemplary damages. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance, owing to the fact that the NLRC had since excluded the award of damages from the computation of the surety bond.[23] And in Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[24] the Court noted that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond had been filed within the reglementary period, and that the appeal should not be deemed perfected until the NLRC has acted on the motion and the appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.[25]
	GR No. 157907 2004-11-25	CHRONICLE SECURITIES CORPORATION v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[27] we ordered the Court of Appeals to entertain an appeal filed six days after the expiration of the reglamentary period; while in Siguenza v. Court of Appeals,[28] we accepted an appeal filed thirteen days late. Likewise, in Olacao v. NLRC,[29] we affirmed the respondent Commission's order giving due course to a tardy appeal "to forestall the grant of separation pay twice" since the issue of separation pay had been judicially settled with finality in another case. All of the aforequoted rulings were reiterated in our 2001 decision in the case of Equitable PCI Bank v. Ku.[30]
	GR No. 130935 2000-05-11	ALLAN VILLAR v. NLRC BELLOSILLO, J.
Finally, we note that the handwritten letters and affidavits executed by Arturo Manimtim and Exequiel Manimtim partake of the nature of quitclaims. Nevertheless, a deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled, or stop them from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of these benefits does not amount to an estoppel.[13] However, it is but just that the amounts received by Arturo and Exequiel Manimtim as consideration for the quitclaims be deducted from their respective monetary awards.