Lawyerly

GR No. 192084

2011-09-14

JOSE MEL BERNARTE v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

CARPIO, J.

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.[13]

GR No. 179242

2011-02-23

AVELINA F. SAGUN v. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES

NACHURA, J.

In proceedings before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence, or that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14]

GR No. 157644

2010-11-17

SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

BRION, J.

In Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez,[43] the Court ruled that the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration, cannot be deemed to have become final and executory as there is no conclusive proof of service of the said resolution. In the words of the Court, "there was no proof of actual receipt of the notice of the registered mail by the respondent's counsel."[44] Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the CA properly acquired jurisdiction over the respondent's petition for certiorari filed before it; in the absence of a reckoning date of the period provided by law for the filing of the petition, the Court could not assume that it was improperly or belatedly filed.

GR No. 164267

2009-03-31

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. HEIRS OF BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA

QUISUMBING, J.

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service, the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service, the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. A party who relies on constructive service or who contends that his adversary has received a copy of a final order or judgment upon the expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice sent by the postmaster must prove that the first notice was actually received by the addressee. Such proof requires a certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.[20]

GR No. 143538

2009-02-13

VICENTE A. MIEL v. JESUS A. MALINDOG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the appeal from the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the CSC shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution. Jurisprudence instructs that when a party is represented by counsel, notice of the judgment, final order or resolution should be made upon the counsel of record.[15] Thus, the fifteen-day period to appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court commenced to run from receipt of the judgment, final order or resolution by the party's counsel on record.[16]

GR No. 172031

2008-07-14

JUANITO TALIDANO v. FALCON MARITIME

TINGA, J,

The paramount issue therefore boils down to the validity of petitioner's dismissal, the determination of which generally involves a question of fact. It is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency. Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to evaluate the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[37]

GR No. 159625

2008-01-31

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Considering the foregoing, the Court deems the amount of P30,000.00 as sufficient nominal damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[25] to vindicate or recognize respondent's right to procedural due process which was violated by her employer, herein petitioner.

GR No. 166547

2007-09-12

UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v. ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG

NACHURA, J.

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service, the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service, which is deemed complete upon expiration of five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster.[43]

GR NO. 156964

2007-07-04

MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Considering the foregoing, the Court deems the amount of P30,000.00 as sufficient nominal damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[33] to vindicate or recognize respondent's right to procedural due process which was violated by his employer, Al Yamama.

GR No. 168421

2007-06-08

JENNIFER FABELLO PASAMBA v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The services of an employee hired on probationary basis may be terminated when he or she fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. The law does not preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment, if the employer finds that the probationary employee is not qualified for regular employment.[26] As long as the termination was made for reasons provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code before the expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer is well within its rights to sever the employer-employee relationship. A contrary interpretation would contravene the clear meaning of the term "probationary."[27] The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither the oppression nor the self-destruction of the employer.[28]

GR NO. 169494

2007-03-14

CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence[16] or "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" is required.[17] Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must apprise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer's decision to terminate his employment.[18] While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker's right to statutory due process.[19]

GR NO. 167347

2007-01-31

CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, whereas a union member may be similarly faulted if he knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.[32] Substantial evidence, which is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,[33] suffices to prove participation in the commission of illegal acts. [34]

GR NO. 158707

2006-11-27

COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is worth stressing that a bank owes great fidelity to the public it deals with, its operation being essentially imbued with public interest. In turn, it cannot be compelled to continue in its employ a person in whom it has lost trust and confidence and whose continued employment would patently be inimical to the bank's interest. Thus, it would be oppressive and unjust to order the petitioner to take respondent back. Unlike other just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible, to regain.[57] The law, in protecting the rights of employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect.[58]

	GR No. 192084 2011-09-14	JOSE MEL BERNARTE v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION CARPIO, J.
The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.[13]
	GR No. 179242 2011-02-23	AVELINA F. SAGUN v. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES NACHURA, J.
In proceedings before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence, or that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14]
	GR No. 157644 2010-11-17	SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
In Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez,[43] the Court ruled that the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration, cannot be deemed to have become final and executory as there is no conclusive proof of service of the said resolution. In the words of the Court, "there was no proof of actual receipt of the notice of the registered mail by the respondent's counsel."[44] Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the CA properly acquired jurisdiction over the respondent's petition for certiorari filed before it; in the absence of a reckoning date of the period provided by law for the filing of the petition, the Court could not assume that it was improperly or belatedly filed.
	GR No. 164267 2009-03-31	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. HEIRS OF BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA QUISUMBING, J.
The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service, the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service, the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. A party who relies on constructive service or who contends that his adversary has received a copy of a final order or judgment upon the expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice sent by the postmaster must prove that the first notice was actually received by the addressee. Such proof requires a certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.[20]
	GR No. 143538 2009-02-13	VICENTE A. MIEL v. JESUS A. MALINDOG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the appeal from the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the CSC shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution. Jurisprudence instructs that when a party is represented by counsel, notice of the judgment, final order or resolution should be made upon the counsel of record.[15] Thus, the fifteen-day period to appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court commenced to run from receipt of the judgment, final order or resolution by the party's counsel on record.[16]
	GR No. 172031 2008-07-14	JUANITO TALIDANO v. FALCON MARITIME TINGA, J,
The paramount issue therefore boils down to the validity of petitioner's dismissal, the determination of which generally involves a question of fact. It is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency. Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to evaluate the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[37]
	GR No. 159625 2008-01-31	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Considering the foregoing, the Court deems the amount of P30,000.00 as sufficient nominal damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[25] to vindicate or recognize respondent's right to procedural due process which was violated by her employer, herein petitioner.
	GR No. 166547 2007-09-12	UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v. ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG NACHURA, J.
The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service, the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service, which is deemed complete upon expiration of five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster.[43]
	GR NO. 156964 2007-07-04	MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Considering the foregoing, the Court deems the amount of P30,000.00 as sufficient nominal damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[33] to vindicate or recognize respondent's right to procedural due process which was violated by his employer, Al Yamama.
	GR No. 168421 2007-06-08	JENNIFER FABELLO PASAMBA v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The services of an employee hired on probationary basis may be terminated when he or she fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. The law does not preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment, if the employer finds that the probationary employee is not qualified for regular employment.[26] As long as the termination was made for reasons provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code before the expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer is well within its rights to sever the employer-employee relationship. A contrary interpretation would contravene the clear meaning of the term "probationary."[27] The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither the oppression nor the self-destruction of the employer.[28]
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence[16] or "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" is required.[17] Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must apprise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer's decision to terminate his employment.[18] While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker's right to statutory due process.[19]
	GR NO. 167347 2007-01-31	CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, whereas a union member may be similarly faulted if he knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.[32] Substantial evidence, which is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,[33] suffices to prove participation in the commission of illegal acts. [34]
	GR NO. 158707 2006-11-27	COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is worth stressing that a bank owes great fidelity to the public it deals with, its operation being essentially imbued with public interest. In turn, it cannot be compelled to continue in its employ a person in whom it has lost trust and confidence and whose continued employment would patently be inimical to the bank's interest. Thus, it would be oppressive and unjust to order the petitioner to take respondent back. Unlike other just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible, to regain.[57] The law, in protecting the rights of employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect.[58]

PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ