Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. "The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause."[70] Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[71]
	GR No. 165951 2010-03-30	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
On this note, it is well settled that this Court is not a trier of facts. To begin with, the question of whether respondents were dismissed for authorized cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law. It does not extend to questions of fact; more so, in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force.[18]
	GR No. 180357 2009-08-04	PIONEER INSURANCE v. HEIRS OF VICENTE CORONADO NACHURA, J.
Factual findings are accorded not only great respect but also finality and are deemed binding upon the Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[20] Sadly, this is not true in this case. We find that the conclusion of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that the property described in TCT No. N-19781 is not located in the place where the subject property is located lacks adequate basis.
	GR No. 180719 2008-08-22	CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE v. RUBEN G. DELA CRUZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The August 31, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91054 and its November 16, 2007 Resolution are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Centennial Transmarine, Inc., Centennial Maritime Services, Corp., and B+H Equimar, Singapore, Pte. Ltd. are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Ruben G. Dela Cruz: (1) his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, at the rate of USD1,750.00 monthly, or its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment;[30] (2) his placement fee with 12% interest per annum, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042; (3) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (4) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (5) attorney's fees of 10% of the aggregate monetary award. Costs against petitioners.
	GR No. 163210 2008-08-13	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, the admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.[22] Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.[23] The distinction is clearly laid out in Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[24] In finding that the Report of the Chief Engineer did not constitute substantial evidence to warrant the dismissal of Rosaroso, this Court ruled:According to petitioner, the foregoing Report established that respondent was dismissed for just cause. The CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, however, refused to give credence to the Report. They are one in ruling that the Report cannot be given any probative value as it is uncorroborated by other evidence and that it is merely hearsay, having come from a source, the Chief Engineer, who did not have any personal knowledge of the events reported therein.
	GR NO. 157975 2007-06-26	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELICISIMO CARILLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. More so, in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force. [13] The LA and the NLRC have ruled on the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon us so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]
	GR NO. 150429 2006-08-29	ROBERTO G. FAMANILA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is fundamental that the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law. It does not extend to questions of fact. More so in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force.[14] The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] We reviewed the records of the case and we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the labor arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals.