Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CLARION PRINTING HOUSE v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183233 2009-12-23	VIRGILIO G. ANABE v. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Citing Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC,[6] the appellate court noted that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. And it affirmed the ruling of the NLRC that petitioner is only entitled to the illegal deductions for the period 1997-1999 in the amount of P88,000.00, as the prescriptive period for money claims is only three years from the time the cause of action accrues.
	GR No. 181503 2009-09-18	BIO QUEST MARKETING INC. v. EDMUND REY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC[21] teaches that sliding incomes or decreasing gross revenues alone do not necessarily indicate business losses within the meaning of Article 283, for, in the nature of things, the possibility of incurring losses is constantly present in business operations.
	GR No. 176240 2008-10-17	ROLANDO SASAN v. NLRC 4TH DIVISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] we again emphasized that:[T]he NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.
	GR NO. 164856 2007-08-29	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES QUISUMBING, J.
Since petitioners' claim against PAL is a money claim for their wages during the pendency of PAL's appeal to the NLRC, the same should have been suspended pending the rehabilitation proceedings. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, as well as the Court of Appeals should have abstained from resolving petitioners' case for illegal dismissal and should instead have directed them to lodge their claim before PAL's receiver.[22]