Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBERTO S. SILVA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 189861 2014-11-19	MICHELIN ASIA APPLICATION CENTER v. MARIO J. ORTIZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Of significant consideration is Ortiz's violation of the mandatory requirement on the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration, which thus rendered the NLRC's initial March 24, 2008 Resolution final and executory. Silva v. NLRC[47] instructs: Time and again, this Court has been emphatic in ruling that the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period following the receipt by a party of any order, resolution or decision of the NLRC, is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision. The statutory base for this is found in Article 223[48] of the Labor Code and Section 14, Rule VII[49] of the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.[50] (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 197309 2012-10-10	ACE NAVIGATION CO. v. TEODORICO FERNANDEZ BRION, J.
Fernandez explains that his complaint does not involve any "unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [nor] from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies[.]"[22] As he never referred his claim to the grievance machinery, there is no "unresolved grievance" to speak of. His complaint involves a claim for compensation and damages which is outside the voluntary arbitrator's jurisdiction under Article 261. Further, only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery and to voluntary arbitration, as the Court held in Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU v. Cañizares[23] and Silva v. CA.[24]
	GR No. 162943 2010-12-06	EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS. v. BAYER PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Indeed, in Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission,[56] we explained the correlations of Article 248 (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code to mean that for a ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.[57]
	GR NO. 168569 2007-10-05	SAN MIGUEL FOODS v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint should show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; AND (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)