Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KAY PRODUCTS v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 198587 2015-01-14	SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO LEONEN, J.
In a long line of cases, this court awarded exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees whose "dismissal[s were] effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner."[122] This court has awarded exemplary damages to employees who were terminated on such frivolous, arbitrary, and unjust grounds as membership in or involvement with labor unions,[123] injuries sustained in the course of employment,[124] development of a medical condition due to the employer's own violation of the employment contract,[125] and lodging of a Complaint against the employer.[126] Exemplary damages were also awarded to employees who were deemed illegally dismissed by an employer in an attempt to evade compliance with statutorily established employee benefits.[127] Likewise, employees dismissed for supposedly just causes, but in violation of due process requirements, were awarded exemplary damages.[128]
	GR No. 183810 2010-01-21	FARLEY FULACHE v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION BRION, J.
Moreover, they are also entitled to moral damages since their dismissal was attended by bad faith.[40] For having been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect their rights and interest, the petitioners are likewise entitled to attorney's fees.[41]
	GR No. 170452 2008-08-13	SALVADOR CHUA v. RODRIGO TIMAN QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners cannot also raise the defenses of in pari delicto and good faith. The defense of in pari delicto was not raised in the RTC, hence, such an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Petitioners must have seasonably raised it in the proceedings before the lower court, because questions raised on appeal are confined only within the issues framed by the parties. [14] The defense of good faith must also fail because such an issue is a question of fact [15] which may not be properly raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which allows only questions of law. [16]
	GR No. 167310 2008-06-17	PENINSULA MANILA QUISUMBING, J.
Furthermore, as a rule, moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended with bad faith or was done in a manner contrary to good customs.[17] Exemplary damages may also be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.[18]
	GR No. 167648 2008-01-28	TELEVISION v. ROBERTO C. SERVAÑA TINGA, J,
However, with respect to the liability of petitioner Tuviera, president of TAPE, absent any showing that he acted with malice or bad faith in terminating respondent, he cannot be held solidarily liable with TAPE.[31] Thus, the Court of Appeals ruling on this point has to be modified.
	GR NO. 168096 2007-08-28	ALEX B. CARLOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' complete reliance on the alleged resignation letters to support their claim that private respondents voluntarily resigned is unavailing, as the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation.[16] Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to dissociate themselves from their employment. It must be done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment.[17]
	GR NO. 158762 2007-04-03	SILVANO B. GAJE v. PATRICIA S. VDA. DE DALISAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law.[24] What Section 1,[25] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court proscribes is this Court supplanting by its own judgment that of the RTC and the Court of Appeals by conducting its own evaluation of the evidence. Precisely, under the Rules, it is peremptory that in a verified petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45, the petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth therein. Otherwise stated, it is not the function of this Court to review evidence all over again.[26]
	GR NO. 147593 2006-07-31	GERONIMO Q. QUADRA v. CA PUNO, J.
First: The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the PCSO did not act in bad faith when it dismissed the petitioner is contrary to the already final and executory decision of the CIR dated November 1[9], 1966 finding the PCSO guilty of bad faith and unfair labor practice in dismissing the petitioner. The decision of the CIR was affirmed by the High Court in the case of PCSO, et al. v. Geronimo Q. Quadra, et al., 115 SCRA 34. The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to amend the final and executory decision of November 1[9], 1966 of the CIR which was affirmed by the High Court. Once a decision has become final [and] executory, it could no longer be amended or altered.