Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SERAFIN QUEBEC v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
Apropos thereto, Art. 277, par. (b), of the Labor Code mandates in explicit terms that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests on the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentialburden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal.[27]
	GR NO. 152949 2007-08-14	AKLAN COLLEGE v. RODOLFO P. GUARINO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to respondent's entitlement to separation pay, the settled rule is that separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is seeking another employment.[29] In the present case, while respondent was no longer allowed to return to his positions as Acting Dean and Acting Personnel Director he was, nonetheless, retained as an instructor. Hence, he could not be deemed as separated from the service because his employment as instructor remains.
	GR No. 143604 2003-06-20	PRISCO LANZADERAS v. AMETHYST SECURITY QUISUMBING, J.
Resort to judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC, a quasi-judicial body, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is confined only to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion resulting thereto, on the part of the tribunal rendering them.[30] In the instant case, the petitioners a quo failed to allege before the appellate court "grave abuse of discretion resulting thereto," thus amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. That failure was fatal to the petitioners' cause. Their appeal was properly denied, hence their present petition lacks merit, and ought to be likewise denied.