This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| More significantly, the same principles were applied to cases involving overseas Filipino workers whose fixed-term employment contracts were illegally terminated, such as in First Asian Trans & Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople,[119] involving seafarers who were illegally discharged. In Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[120] an OFW who was illegally dismissed prior to the expiration of her fixed-period employment contract as a baby sitter, was awarded salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract. The Court arrived at the same ruling in Anderson v. National Labor Relations Commission,[121] which involved a foreman hired in 1988 in Saudi Arabia for a fixed term of two years, but who was illegally dismissed after only nine months on the job -- the Court awarded him salaries corresponding to 15 months, the unexpired portion of his contract. In Asia World Recruitment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[122] a Filipino working as a security officer in 1989 in Angola was awarded his salaries for the remaining period of his 12-month contract after he was wrongfully discharged. Finally, in Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[123] an OFW whose 12-month contract was illegally cut short in the second month was declared entitled to his salaries for the remaining 10 months of his contract. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is already settled that proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform are summary in nature and the department is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive action or proceeding.[3] Although bound by law and practice to observe due process, administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers are, nonetheless, free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements. As applied to these proceedings, due process requires only an opportunity to explain one's side.[4] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even if petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari, which would have been the proper remedy, the same would still fail. The Court finds that the labor arbiter did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when he issued the 25 August 1998 Order. For one, the holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right.[31] Section 4, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC[32] grants a labor arbiter wide latitude to determine, after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memoranda, whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing.[33] As this court has so often held, a formal type or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of controversy.[34] In one case, this Court held that a party has no vested right to a formal hearing simply and merely because the labor arbiter granted its motion and set the case for hearing.[35] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right.[29] Section 4, Rule V[30] of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC[31] grants a labor arbiter wide latitude to determine, after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memoranda, whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing. | |||||