This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Then, too, it is with the Labor Arbiter that Raza had the chance to refute, contradict or deny the veracity of the report. He had every opportunity to present his own controverting evidence to impeach the credibility of such evidence. He did none of that, however. Instead, Raza admitted in his Reply that he indeed brought the car to his own house “for a number of times,” albeit allegedly with prior “knowledge, permission and tolerance” of his superior.[73] Although he was unclear whether such “number of times” corresponds with the number of incidents reflected in the security guards' report, what is more important is his admission of the fact of bringing home the car more than a few times. He did not deny nor disprove that he committed such acts, even when he was given the chance to do so. In administrative proceedings, one may not claim having been denied due process when one has been given ample opportunity to be heard, for the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[74] It is evident in the case at bar that Raza was not barred from being heard nor that he had an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. | |||||
|
2012-11-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In view of these, it is clear that the NLRC did not err in entertaining petitioners' appeal and in considering their Position Paper in resolving the same. It merely liberally applied the rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice in accord with the provisions of the Labor Code. As it is, "[t]echnicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties."[44] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In any case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by the NLRC. Indeed, the appeal must be perfected within the statutory or reglementary period. This is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal on time renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less entertain the appeal. However, this Court has, time and again, ruled that, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be denied. The Court has allowed this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.[16] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners then proceeded to describe the work they render for the company. Collectively, they claim that they work as assistants in the production of the Cebuano news program broadcast daily over ABS-CBN Channel 3, as follows: Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad as production assistants to drive the news team; Ponce and Almendras, to shoot scenes and events with the use of cameras owned by ABS-CBN; Malig-on Bigno, as studio production assistant and assistant editor/teleprompter operator; and Cabas, Jr., as production assistant for video editing and operating the VTR machine recorder. As production assistants, the petitioners submit that they are rank-and-file employees (citing in support of their position the Court's ruling in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno[23]) who are entitled to salary increases and other benefits under the CBA. Relying on the Court's ruling in New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, Inc. v. NLRC,[24] they posit that to exclude them from the CBA "would constitute undue discrimination and would deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to." | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| That the first stated position is the situation contemplated and sanctioned by law is further enhanced by the absence of a statutory limitation before regular status can be acquired by a casual employee. The law is explicit. As long as the employee has rendered at least one year of service, he becomes a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed. The law does not provide the qualification that the employee must first be issued a regular appointment or must first be formally declared as such before he can acquire a regular status. Obviously, where the law does not distinguish, no distinction should be drawn.[8] Considering that an employee becomes regular with respect to the activity in which he is employed one year after he is employed, the reckoning date for determining his regularization is his hiring date. Therefore, it is error for petitioner Kimberly to claim that it is from April 21, 1986 that the one-year period should be counted. While it is a fact that the issue of regularization came about only when KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification election, the concerned employees attained regular status by operation of law.[9] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Was he lawfully dismissed? The first question, i.e., whether respondent is a regular, probationary, or fixed term employee is essentially factual in nature.[32] However, the Court opts to resolve this question due to the far-reaching effects it could bring to the sector of the academe. | |||||