This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| On October 21, 2000, he was admitted to the St. Luke's Medical Center.[7] Subsequently, he was diagnosed to have sustained "thermal burns, upper and lower extremities and abdomen, 2º-3º, 11%" [8] for which he underwent debridement. He was referred to a physical therapist for his subsequent debridement through hydrotherapy. On November 10, 2000, the attending physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II, reported that the respondent's thermal burns were healing well and that they were estimated to fully heal within a period of 3 to 4 months.[9] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Proceeding now to the meat of the instant controversy, we find that the NLRC, except with respect to the aforementioned 149 claimants listed in Annex "B" of the September 2, 1991 Resolution, did not abuse its discretion, much more gravely, when it reconsidered its December 3, 2002 Decision and denied the claims of the rest of the petitioners. At this juncture, we emphasize that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will lie only when grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the labor tribunals is clearly shown.[37] It is incumbent, then, for petitioners to establish before the appellate court that the labor tribunal capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to constitute an evasion of positive duty enjoined or a refusal to act at all in contemplation of law.[38] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court reiterates that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the CA will prosper only if there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.[20] It was incumbent, then, for petitioner to prove before the appellate court that the labor commission capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[21] Here, as aforesaid, no such proof was adduced by petitioner. We, thus, declare that the NLRC ruling is not characterized by grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the same is also affirmed. | |||||