This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The NLRC's reasoning that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution of a final and executory judgment is also rooted in case law. Jurisprudence dictates that a final and executory decision of the LA can no longer be reversed or modified.[20] After all, just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winning party have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.[21] On this basis, theCA did not grievously err when it concluded that the ruling of the NLRC denying petitioner's appeal was not baseless, arbitrary, whimsical, or despotic.[22] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As to respondent's monetary claims, petitioners did not deny respondent's entitlement to service incentive leave pay as, indeed, it is indisputable that he is entitled thereto. In Fernandez v. NLRC,[62] this Court elucidated: The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay to workers in all establishments, subject to a few exceptions. Section 2, Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations[63] provides that "[e]very employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay." Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served "within 12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered as one year."[64] It is also "commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year."[65] In other words, an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary value. xxx[66] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In an individual proprietorship, the owner has unlimited personal liability for all the debts and obligations of the business.[6] As sole proprietor of Agencia Cebuana, from whose employment the petitioners were unlawfully removed, Marguerite Lhuillier is the party against whom the Court's final and executory Decision in G.R. No. 105892 is enforceable. Put differently, Marguerite Lhuillier is personally liable under the same Decision. Garnishment and levy over her property are proper in the dispensation of justice. | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The pleadings and documents filed extensively discussed the issues raised by the parties. Such being the case, there is sufficient basis to resolve the instant controversy.[20] Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, with the least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process.[21] Remanding the case to the Court of Appeals will only frustrate speedy justice and, in any event, would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would end up with this Court.[22] We shall thus rule on the substantial claims of the parties. | |||||