Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GREAT SOUTHERN MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION v. JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUÑA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176995 2008-07-30	PABLO D. ACAYLAR v. DANILO G. HARAYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also agree with the petitioner that failure to state the material dates is not fatal to his cause of action, provided the date of his receipt, i.e., 9 May 2006, of the RTC Resolution dated 18 April 2006 denying his Motion for Reconsideration is duly alleged in his Petition.[21] In the recent case of Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[22] we held that "the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the petition may be excused since the dates are evident from the records." The more material date for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeals is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration.[23] The other material dates may be gleaned from the records of the case if reasonably evident.[24]
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[25] the Court ruled: Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law, but the rudimentary requirements of due process, basic to which are that an opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself must be observed before an employee may be dismissed.[26]
	GR NO. 141371 2006-03-24	PANGANIBAN v. ROSELLE CINEMA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is well-aware that in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[16] The Court ruled in Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. v. Acuña,[17] to wit:Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. x x x [18] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 146197 2005-09-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
In the recent case of Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[25] we held that "the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the petition may be excused since the dates are evident from the records." The more material date for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeals is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration, which date is admittedly stated in the petition in the present case. The other material dates may be gleaned from the records of the case if reasonably evident. Thus, in this case the Court deems it proper to relax the Rules to give all the parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.[26]
	GR No. 146197 2005-06-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
within the reglementary period. The Court reiterates that there is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure.[24] In the recent case of Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[25] we held that "the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the petition may be excused since the dates are evident from