Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 206612 2015-08-17	TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES SERENO, C.J.
Remaining at bench is the Motion for Reconsideration[1] of petitioner Toyota Alabang, Inc. We had unanimously denied[2] its Petition for Review on Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for Injunctive Relief,[3] which sought the nullity of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution.[4] The CA affirmed the Resolutions[5] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing petitioner's appeal for non-perfection and for lack of merit. In effect, the NLRC sustained the ruling[6] of the labor arbiter (LA) finding that petitioner had illegally dismissed respondent Edwin Games (Games).
	GR No. 189404 2013-12-11	WILGEN LOON v. POWER MASTER BRION, J.
In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required. Time and again, we have allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice.[28] Thus, we have consistently supported the rule that labor officials should use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process.[29]
	GR No. 183383 2010-04-05	ANABEL BENJAMIN v. AMELLAR CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
On the procedural issue, the Court resolved to relax the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases to serve the demands of substantial justice, there being merit in Consolacion's case.[32] His counsel, who claimed that Consolacion was in the province at the time of the filing of the petition, promptly submitted Consolacion's verification and certification as directed by the Court.
	GR No. 176219 2008-12-23	RENTOKIL PHILIPPINES v. LEILANI D. SANCHEZ TINGA, J.
It is a well-settled rule that the findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded great respect and, at times, even finality. There are, however, exceptions, among which is when there is a conflict between the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.[15] Accordingly, this Court must of necessity review the records to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.[16] Nor is this Court bound by conclusions which are not supported by substantial evidence. The substantial evidence rule does not authorize any finding just as long as there is any evidence to support it. It does not excuse administrative agencies from considering contrary evidence which fairly detracts from the evidence supporting a finding.[17]
	GR No. 172241 2008-11-20	PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
will have to look into the factual matters involved. Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule that the findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded great respect and, at times, even finality. There are, however, exceptions, among which is when there is a conflict between the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.[25] Accordingly, this Court must of necessity review the records to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.[26]
	GR No. 167708 2008-08-22	SECRETARY OF LABOR v. PANAY VETERAN'S SECURITY CORONA, J.
The CA's amended decision also contradicted the spirit that animates all labor laws, the promotion of social justice and the protection of workers. The posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of an order involving a monetary award has a two-fold purpose: (1) to assure the employee that, if he finally prevails in the case, the monetary award will be given to him upon dismissal of the employer's appeal and (2) to discourage the employer from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of his obligations to the employee.[17] The CA disregarded these pro-labor objectives when it treated respondents' failure to post the required bond with undue leniency. The CA should have resolved any doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the Labor Code and its implementing rules in favor of labor.[18] For like all laws which govern industrial relations (assuming all things are equal), the rules governing the proceedings in labor disputes should be interpreted in favor of the worker.
	GR No. 178083 2008-07-23	FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
(5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[45]
	GR NO. 152843 2006-07-20	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. REYNALDO BENEDICTO CORONA, J.
Under the second paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code, when a judgment involving monetary award is appealed by the employer, the appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment. This assures the workers that if they finally prevail in the case, the monetary award will be given to them on dismissal of the employer's appeal.[26] It is also meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees.[27]