Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 163431 2013-08-28	NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS BERSAMIN, J.
Although we recognize the inherent right of the employer to discipline its employees, we should still ensure that the employer exercises the prerogative to discipline humanely and considerately, and that the sanction imposed is commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. The discipline exacted by the employer should further consider the employee's length of service and the number of infractions during his employment.[27] The employer should never forget that always at stake in disciplining its employee are not only his position but also his livelihood,[28] and that he may also have a family entirely dependent on his earnings.[29]
	GR No. 186344 2013-02-20	LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY PEREZ, J.
As a relief granted in lieu of reinstatement, however, it consequently goes without saying that an award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Standing alone, the doctrine of strained relations will not justify an award of separation pay, a relief granted in instances where the common denominator is the fact that the employee was dismissed by the employer.[35] Even in cases of illegal dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations is not applied indiscriminately as to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to work[36] or does not occupy a position of trust and confidence in[37] or has no say in the operation of the employer's business.[38] Although litigation may also engender a certain degree of hostility, it has likewise been ruled that the understandable strain in the parties' relations would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule rather than the exception in illegal dismissal cases.[39]
	GR No. 168394 2008-10-06	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. LORETO G. NICOLAS REYES, R.T., J.
Moreover, the Court notes that this is the first time the issue of cause of action, or the lack of it, was raised. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that matters that strike at the very heart of the petition must be raised at the very first instance. Certainly, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[31]
	GR No. 174929 2008-06-27	ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,[28] and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[29]
	GR NO. 170811 2007-04-24	SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPORATION v. ROGELIO BARDAJE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, even assuming, gratia argumentis, that the aforementioned infractions were actually committed by the petitioner, still, private respondents, and for that matter, the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, can no longer utilize said previous infractions of the petitioner as a justification for his dismissal from work inasmuch as said infractions have been admittedly condoned by the private respondents supposedly for humanitarian considerations. (Citations Omitted)[36] It appears that respondent impleaded SSPC President Regan Sy only because he is an officer/agent of the company. However, petitioner Sy cannot be held solidarily liable with petitioner SSPC for the termination of respondent's employment, since there is no showing that the dismissal was attended with malice or bad faith.[37]
	GR NO. 158499 2007-04-03	NS TRANSPORT SERVICES v. JOSE ZALDY N. ZETA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, we do not entertain factual issues. The scope of our review in petitions filed under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law or jurisdiction.[25] We leave the evaluation of facts to the trial and appellate courts which are better equipped for this task.
	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
The aforementioned issue is now raised only for the first time on appeal before this Court. Settled is the rule that issues not raised in the proceedings below (COMELEC en banc) cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Fairness and due process dictate that evidence and issues not presented below cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal.[50]
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Be that as it may, the Court of Appeals should not have ordered the reinstatement of respondent. As both parties emphasized, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC did not order the reinstatement of the respondent, and the latter did not appeal the decision. A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision.[21] Moreover, we have ruled in many instances that reinstatement is no longer viable where the business of the employer has closed, or where the relations between the employer and the employee have been so severely strained that it is not advisable to order reinstatement, or where the employee decides not to be reinstated.[22] Respondent expressly prayed for an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the very start of the proceedings at the PACU and the NLRC. By so doing, he forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication.[23]