Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PCL SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193756 2013-04-10	VENANCIO S. REYES v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY MENDOZA, J.
As to their claim of attorney's fees, petitioners were compelled to file an action for the recovery of their lawful wages and other benefits and, in the process, incurred expenses. Hence, petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award.[26]
	GR No. 167140 2011-11-23	COL. FRANCISCO DELA MERCED v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS MANLONGAT DEL CASTILLO, J.
The order to cancel the titles of GSIS over Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 allegedly could not be enforced because GSIS no longer had title over these two lots. GSIS had already conveyed these lots in 1985 and 1988 to Diogenes Bartolome (Lot 8) and Antonio Dimaguila [Dimaguila] (Lot 7), respectively. At present, Lot 7 of Block 2 is titled in Dimaguila's name (TCT No. PT-67466)[36] while Lot 8 of Block 2 is titled in the name of Bartolome's assignee, Zenaida Victorino [Victorino] (TCT No. 53031).[37] While both titles contain notices of lis pendens carried over from GSIS's title,[38] the RD claimed that the writ of execution must first be modified to include the cancellation of derivative titles of the GSIS title.
	GR No. 174179 2011-11-16	KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI SA MWC-EAST ZONE UNION v. MANILA WATER COMPANY BRION, J.
We explained in PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[34]that there are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees the ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results of legal services per agreement or as may be assessed. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. The instances when these may be awarded are enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically in its paragraph 7 on actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall accrue to the lawyer as additional or part of compensation.[35]
	GR No. 188637 2010-12-15	ARNALDO G. GABUNAS v. SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES INC. SERENO, J.
In De Jesus v. National Labor Relations Commission,[22] judicial review by the Supreme Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence that served as the basis for the proper labor tribunal's determination. The doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts is firm and applies with greater force to labor cases.[23]
	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
As to the award of attorney's fees, by reason of his illegal dismissal, respondent was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest.[39] Moreover, in labor cases, although an express finding of fact and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award of attorney's fees, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[40] Thus, it is but just and proper that the same should be awarded to respondent.
	GR Nos. 151983-84 2008-07-31	JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[37] citing Dr. Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[38] this Court enunciated that there are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees, the so-called ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services the former has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of the attorney's employment by and his agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The instances in which these may be awarded are those enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically paragraph 7[39] thereof, which pertains to actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.[40] Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorney's fees.
	GR No. 160905 2008-07-04	BIENVENIDO D. GOMA v. PAMPLONA PLANTATION INCORPORATED NACHURA, J.
On petitioner's entitlement to attorney's fees, we must take into account the fact that petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment and that his wages and other benefits were withheld from him without any valid and legal basis. As a consequence, he was compelled to file an action for the recovery of his lawful wages and other benefits and, in the process, incurred expenses. On these bases, the Court finds that he is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award.[42]
	GR No. 151158 2007-08-17	JOEL B. DE JESUS v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
It is a settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination. Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[19] However, factual issues may be considered and resolved when the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals,[20] as in this case.
	GR NO. 157975 2007-06-26	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELICISIMO CARILLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause [16]and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[17] The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[18]