This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We, however, find that the CA erred in applying the ruling in these cases since they involve different sets of facts and are not decisive of the instant case. In both the cited cases, the banks, through their employees, were negligent, and this caused damage to their clients. These differ from the instant case in that the resulting damage here was caused to PNB and not to its clients. And as PNB certainly has the right to expect diligence from its employees[36] and has the prerogative to discipline them for acts inimical to its interests, the NLRC is justified in allocating the loss suffered by it among those employees who proved to be negligent in their respective duties. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find that the NLRC acted well within its appellate jurisdiction over the labor arbiter in reversing the latter's factual conclusions. The powers and jurisdiction of the NLRC as the country's labor court is well-defined in the Labor Code. Article 223 states that decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter may be appealed if there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter, or serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant[21] while Article 217 specifically provides that the Commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the labor arbiters. Moreover, Article 218 (c) vests the Commission the power to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.[22] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, premises considered the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with modification ordering the [petitioner] payment of the backwages of the [respondents] from May 15, 1998 up to May 25, 1999, further directing the reinstatement of the [respondents] to their original positions without loss of seniority or in lieu thereof the payment of their separation pay as computed in the appealed decision.[43] The above ruling of the NLRC in its Decision dated 30 October 2001 had the effect of reversing and modifying the findings of the Labor Arbiter. Under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the Commission is empowered to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or form," in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.[44] The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision as worded is clear and needs no further interpretation. The NLRC found respondents to have been illegally dismissed by petitioner, and ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages. Additionally, it stated that where reinstatement is not possible, separation pay as computed in the appealed decision should be awarded to respondents. Petitioner interprets the dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision to mean that it is ordered to pay respondents backwages from 15 May 1998 to 25 May 1999 only. Petitioner seems to have missed that the aforestated NLRC Decision also directed it to reinstate respondents, or in lieu thereof, pay separation pay. This, petitioner failed to do. Petitioner did not exercise the option of either reinstatement or paying the separation pay of respondents. | |||||