Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO O. ARIOLA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR Nos. 205685-86 2015-06-22	EMMANUEL H. BERALDE v. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL PERALTA, J.
Likewise, jurisprudence laid down the following standards to justify retrenchment in order to prevent the management from abusing this prerogative. In Ariola v. Philex Mining Corporation,[29] the Court summarized the requirements for retrenchment, as follows:Thus, the requirements for retrenchment are: (1) it is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual, and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) the employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The Court later added the requirements that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and x x x retained among the employees and that the retrenchment must be undertaken in good faith. Except for the written notice to the affected employees and the DOLE, non-compliance with any of these requirements renders the retrenchment illegal.[30]
	GR No. 199554 2015-02-18	ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO. LEONEN, J.
Consequently, if "the intent to retire is not clearly established or if the retirement is involuntary, it is to be treated as a discharge."[63]
	GR No. 168734 2009-04-24	MARCELINO LOPEZ v. JOSE ESQUIVEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It is a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[38] Thus, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and upon any and subsequent appeal.[39]
	GR No. 173231 2007-12-28	RUBEN L. ANDRADA v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
In Ariola v. Philex Mining Corporation,[12] the Court summarized the requirements for retrenchment, as follows:Thus, the requirements for retrenchment are: (1) it is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual, and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) the employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The Court later added the requirements that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and x x x retained among the employees and that the retrenchment must be undertaken in good faith. Except for the written notice to the affected employees and the DOLE, non-compliance with any of these requirements render[s] the retrenchment illegal.
	GR No. 168781 2007-09-14	CITY OF MAKATI v. JUDGE BRICCIO C. YGAÑA GARCIA, J.
Here, petitioner would urge a re-litigation over the settled issue of the propriety of the preliminary injunction over the "Inner Fort." This is contrary to the "law-of-the-case" doctrine, for, thereunder, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal, enabling said appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and upon any subsequent appeal.[25]
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a basic legal principle that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[48] This principle generally finds application in cases where an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. Consequently, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and upon any and subsequent appeal.[49]
	GR NO. 168719 2006-02-22	PHILIPPINE CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
In contrast, in this case, the retrenchment effected by respondent Corporation is invalid due to a substantive defect, non-compliance with the substantial requirements to effect a valid retrenchment; it necessarily follows that the termination of the employment of petitioner Union's members on such ground is, likewise, illegal. As such, they (petitioner Union's members) are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.[73] However, in the case of those employees-members of petitioner Union who had received their respective separation pay, the amounts of such payments shall be deducted from the backwages due them.[74] Where reinstatement is no longer feasible because the positions they previously held no longer exist, respondent Corporation shall pay the employees-members of petitioner Union backwages plus, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one month pay, or one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[75]
	GR NO. 164518 2006-01-25	INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO ABABON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Ariola v. Philex Mining Corporation,[38] we held: In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, the Court sustained the dismissals for just cause under Article 282 and for authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, respectively, despite non-compliance with the statutory requirement of notice and hearing. The grounds for the dismissals in those cases, namely, neglect of duty and retrenchment, remained valid because the non-compliance with the notice and hearing requirement in the Labor Code did not undermine the validity of the grounds for the dismissals. Indeed, to invalidate a dismissal merely because of a procedural defect creates absurdity and runs counter to public interest. We explained in Agabon:
	GR NO. 152012 2005-09-30	LAND v. MARIANITO C. ESQUILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
That respondent is a professional structural engineer did not make him less susceptible to disadvantageous financial offers, faced as he was with the prospect of unemployment in a country not his own. "This Court has allowed supervisory employees to seek payment of benefits and a manager to sue for illegal dismissal even though, for a consideration, they executed deeds of quitclaims releasing their employers from liability."[19]