Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172349 2012-06-13	POLYFOAM-RGC INTERNATIONAL v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
Petitioners failed to show any valid or authorized cause under the Labor Code which allowed it to terminate the services of respondent. Neither was it shown that respondent was given ample opportunity to contest the legality of his dismissal. No notice of termination was given to him. Clearly, respondent was not afforded due process. Having failed to establish compliance with the requirements of termination of employment under the Labor Code, the dismissal of respondent was tainted with illegality.[55] Consequently, respondent is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges and to his full backwages inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible as in this case, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service shall be awarded as an alternative.[56] Thus, the CA is correct in affirming the LA's award of separation pay with full backwages and other monetary benefits.
	GR No. 170738 2009-10-30	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
As aptly pointed out by petitioner RCBC in its Comment, not once did Marcopper question the validity of the chattel mortgage on the Rig Haul Trucks and the Demag Shovel. But now, Marcopper is asserting that the deed of chattel mortgage on these equipment was executed for a consideration that did not materialize and RCBC should have released the mortgage. It is now too late for respondent to contradict its previous judicial admissions in the prior proceedings of the case. It would appear that in Marcopper's attempt to seek reversal of the Court's Decision, it is in effect changing its theory of the case. Well-settled is the rule that a party is not allowed to change the theory of the case or the cause of action on appeal.[18] We have consistently rejected the pernicious practice of shifting to a new theory on appeal in the hope of a favorable result.[19] Issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of justice and fair play.[20] Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[21]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
That abandonment is negated finds support in a long line of cases where the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal was coupled with a prayer for reinstatement; the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal is proof enough of the desire to return to work.[25] The prayer for reinstatement, as in this case, speaks against any intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.[26]
	GR No. 159343 2007-09-28	PEDY CASERES v. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The LA, the NLRC and the CA are one in ruling that petitioners were not illegally dismissed as they were not regular, but contractual or project employees. Consequently, the finding of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA that petitioners were project employees binds this Court.[8]
	GR NO. 156146 2007-06-21	OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE SERVICES v. EDGARDO B. CHANTENGCO NACHURA, J.
Evidently cognizant of such neglect, OMSI attempted to correct the situation by attaching copies of the application forms[10] of the respondents to its motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. Such practice cannot be tolerated. This practice of submitting evidence late is properly rejected as it defeats the speedy administration of justice involving poor workers. It is also unfair.[11]
	GR NO. 169353 2007-04-13	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph. Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. Thus, the applicable formula to ascertain whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[9] As we held in Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo:[10]