Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MILAGROS PANUNCILLO v. CAP PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 212054 2015-03-11	ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER v. MARIA THERESA V. SANCHEZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not suffered any actual damage. While damage aggravates the charge, its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee's liability.[71] Neither is SLMC's non-filing of the appropriate criminal charges relevant to this analysis. An employee's guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for his or her dismissal.[72] It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of employment,[73] as in this case. Criminal and labor cases involving an employee arising from the same infraction are separate and distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment from one to the other.
	GR No. 182072 2013-06-28	UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO PERALTA, J.
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. However, the adverse party is not precluded from assailing the decision via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA and then to this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45.[22] Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, there is no violation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment when respondent elevated the matter to the CA which the latter consequently granted.
	GR No. 164856 2009-01-20	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The proposition is tenuous. First, the matter is treated as a mere race against time. The discussion stopped there without considering the cause of the delay. Second, it requires the issuance of a writ of execution despite the immediately executory nature of the reinstatement aspect of the decision. In Pioneer Texturing Corp. v. NLRC,[18] which was cited in Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc.,[19] the Court observed:x x x The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award [by the Labor Arbiter] for reinstatement shall be immediately executory even pending appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. The legislative intent is quite obvious, i.e., to make an award of reinstatement immediately enforceable, even pending appeal. To require the application for and issuance of a writ of execution as prerequisites for the execution of a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very object and intent of Article 223, i.e., the immediate execution of a reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by Article 223. In other words, if the requirements of Article 224 [including the issuance of a writ of execution] were to govern, as we so declared in Maranaw, then the executory nature of a reinstatement order or award contemplated by Article 223 will be unduly circumscribed and rendered ineffectual. In enacting the law, the legislature is presumed to have ordained a valid and sensible law, one which operates no further than may be necessary to achieve its specific purpose. Statutes, as a rule, are to be construed in the light of the purpose to be achieved and the evil sought to be remedied. x x x In introducing a new rule on the reinstatement aspect of a labor decision under Republic Act No. 6715, Congress should not be considered to be indulging in mere semantic exercise. x x x[20] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 162332 2008-08-28	HERBERT SOLAS v. POWER TELEPHONE SUPPLY PHILS. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, at the outset, respondents must be disabused of their belief that since no appeal may be taken from the NLRC Decision, then the same can no longer be altered. In Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc.,[7] the Court explained that:x x x while under the sixth paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, the adverse party is not precluded from assailing it via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals and then to this Court via a Petition for Review under Rule 45. x x x[8] (Emphasis supplied) Rule 65 gives the adverse party, petitioner in this case, 60 days from the date of receipt of the order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration within which to file a petition for certiorari with the CA. Thus, petitioner took the proper procedural steps to question the NLRC Decision before the CA.
	GR No. 164824 2008-04-30	ROLANDO V. AROMIN v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
The termination of Aromin was effected on June 14, 1991. The prevailing jurisprudence at that time was that as long as the employee was given an opportunity to be heard, due process with respect to the first notice was deemed complied with, even if incidentally no actual hearing was conducted.[32] Thus, respondents BPI, Loinaz, and Barcelon did not breach the due process requirements.