Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIRINEO BOWLING PLAZA v. GERRY SENSING

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 175045-46 2010-03-03	ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
There have been exceptional cases where we have set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice. To justify a relaxation of the Rules, however, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the Rules.[15] Jurisprudence holds that the utter disregard of the Rules cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and, thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.[16]
	GR No. 171275 2009-07-13	VICTOR METEORO v. CREATIVE CREATURES NACHURA, J.
x x x x As it is now worded, and as consistently held in a number of cases,[17] the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers.
	GR No. 160859 2008-07-30	BAY HAVEN v. FLORENTINO ABUAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court has held that the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers.[27] This has been the rule since R.A. No. 7730 was enacted on June 2, 1994, amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, to expand the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Secretary. Under the former rule, the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction only in cases where the amount of the claim does not exceed P5,000.00.
	GR NO. 152396 2007-11-20	EX-BATAAN VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY v. SECRETARY LAGUESMA CARPIO, J.
The aforequoted provision explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase "(N)otwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217of this Code to the contrary x x x" thereby retaining and further strengthening the power of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of said Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officer or industrial safety engineer made in the course of inspection.[23] (Italics in the original) This was further affirmed in our ruling in Cirineo Bowling Plaza, Inc. v. Sensing,[24] where we sustained the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director and held that "the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000."