Lawyerly

GR No. 138379

2004-11-25

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court on June 12, 1998, which was referred, however, to the Court of Appeals on December 9, 1998, following this Court's ruling in St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC..[10]

GR No. 149610

2004-08-20

ROSENDO PIÑERO v. NLRC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioner Rosendo U. Piñero filed with this Court a petition for certiorari[13] which was referred to the Court of Appeals[14] pursuant to the ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home v. NLRC.[15]

GR No. 141926

2004-07-14

CONRADO TAN v. RESTITUTO TIMBAL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On January 20, 1999, this Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the Court of Appeals conformably to its ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC.[10]After due proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on September 24, 1999, affirming the decision of the NLRC as far as William Ang was concerned, but granting the petition and affirming the Order and Alias Writ of Execution of the Labor Arbiter against Conrado Tan. The decretal portion of the decision reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed NLRC decision dated June 18, 1997 is AFFIRMED insofar as Joseph O. Tiu, Rudy D. Ang, Pablo C. King and William T. Ang are concerned. However, as regard (sic) Conrado D. Tan, the Orders of Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan dated January 16 and May 2, 1991, are REINSTATED, SUSTAINED and UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs.

GR No. 143557

2004-06-25

UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

On May 20, 1998, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration, but it was merely noted without action, the same being prohibited.[4] This prompted petitioners to file with this Court, on May 13, 1999, a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[5]

GR No. 141868

2004-05-28

JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Hence, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[4]

GR No. 140992

2004-03-25

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES v. SULPICIO LINES

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

On March 19, 1996, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for certiorari assailing the NLRC Resolutions. Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[8] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.

GR No. 139135

2004-01-29

BOLINAO SECURITY v. ARSENIO M. TOSTON

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[6]

GR No. 139068

2004-01-16

MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOOD v. PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[13] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.

GR No. 143252

2003-10-23

CEBU MARINE BEACH RESORT v. NLRC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[4] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.

GR No. 140982

2003-09-23

MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY

QUISUMBING, J.

Aggrieved, Singer filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which in turn was referred, by resolution[12] dated December 2, 1998, to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC and Bienvenido Aricayos.[13]

GR No. 152329

2003-04-22

ALEJANDRO ROQUERO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

PUNO, J.

The NLRC ruled in favor of complainants as it likewise found PAL guilty of instigation. It ordered reinstatement to their former positions but without backwages.[8] Complainants did not appeal from the decision but filed a motion for a writ of execution of the order of reinstatement. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion but PAL refused to execute the said order on the ground that they have filed a Petition for Review before this Court.[9] In accordance with the case of St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC and Bienvenido Aricayos,[10] PAL's petition was referred to the Court of Appeals.[11]

GR No. 142000

2003-01-22

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC. v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

THIGCI's Motion for Reconsideration of the November 12, 1998 Resolution having been denied by the DOLE Undersecretary by Resolution of December 29, 1998,[11] it filed a petition for certiorari before this Court which, by Resolution of April 14, 1999,[12] referred it to the Court of Appeals in line with its pronouncement in National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al.,[13] and in strict observance of the hierarchy of courts, as emphasized in the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission.[14]

	GR No. 138379 2004-11-25	PLACIDO O. URBANES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court on June 12, 1998, which was referred, however, to the Court of Appeals on December 9, 1998, following this Court's ruling in St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC..[10]
	GR No. 149610 2004-08-20	ROSENDO PIÑERO v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner Rosendo U. Piñero filed with this Court a petition for certiorari[13] which was referred to the Court of Appeals[14] pursuant to the ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home v. NLRC.[15]
	GR No. 141926 2004-07-14	CONRADO TAN v. RESTITUTO TIMBAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
On January 20, 1999, this Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the Court of Appeals conformably to its ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC.[10]After due proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on September 24, 1999, affirming the decision of the NLRC as far as William Ang was concerned, but granting the petition and affirming the Order and Alias Writ of Execution of the Labor Arbiter against Conrado Tan. The decretal portion of the decision reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed NLRC decision dated June 18, 1997 is AFFIRMED insofar as Joseph O. Tiu, Rudy D. Ang, Pablo C. King and William T. Ang are concerned. However, as regard (sic) Conrado D. Tan, the Orders of Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan dated January 16 and May 2, 1991, are REINSTATED, SUSTAINED and UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs.
	GR No. 143557 2004-06-25	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On May 20, 1998, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration, but it was merely noted without action, the same being prohibited.[4] This prompted petitioners to file with this Court, on May 13, 1999, a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[5]
	GR No. 141868 2004-05-28	JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Hence, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[4]
	GR No. 140992 2004-03-25	SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES v. SULPICIO LINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On March 19, 1996, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for certiorari assailing the NLRC Resolutions. Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[8] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 139135 2004-01-29	BOLINAO SECURITY v. ARSENIO M. TOSTON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC.[6]
	GR No. 139068 2004-01-16	MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOOD v. PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[13] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 143252 2003-10-23	CEBU MARINE BEACH RESORT v. NLRC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[4] we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 140982 2003-09-23	MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY QUISUMBING, J.
Aggrieved, Singer filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which in turn was referred, by resolution[12] dated December 2, 1998, to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC and Bienvenido Aricayos.[13]
	GR No. 152329 2003-04-22	ALEJANDRO ROQUERO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES PUNO, J.
The NLRC ruled in favor of complainants as it likewise found PAL guilty of instigation. It ordered reinstatement to their former positions but without backwages.[8] Complainants did not appeal from the decision but filed a motion for a writ of execution of the order of reinstatement. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion but PAL refused to execute the said order on the ground that they have filed a Petition for Review before this Court.[9] In accordance with the case of St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC and Bienvenido Aricayos,[10] PAL's petition was referred to the Court of Appeals.[11]
	GR No. 142000 2003-01-22	TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC. v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION CARPIO MORALES, J.
THIGCI's Motion for Reconsideration of the November 12, 1998 Resolution having been denied by the DOLE Undersecretary by Resolution of December 29, 1998,[11] it filed a petition for certiorari before this Court which, by Resolution of April 14, 1999,[12] referred it to the Court of Appeals in line with its pronouncement in National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al.,[13] and in strict observance of the hierarchy of courts, as emphasized in the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission.[14]

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS MARTINEZ