Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 194134 2016-02-01	JOSE ROMULO L. FRANCISCO v. LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC. PERALTA, J.
Case law instructs that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client.[61] In the absence of a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel, the court will rightly assume that the counsel of record continues to represent his client.[62]
	GR No. 199660 2015-07-13	U-BIX CORPORATION v. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It must be emphasized, however, that "the policy of liberal interpretation is qualified by the requirement that there must be exceptional circumstances to allow the relaxation of the rules. Absent exceptional circumstances, [the Court adheres] to the rule that certain procedural precepts must remain inviolable x x x."[48] After all, an "appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it."[49] The Court adheres to the strict interpretation of the rule in this case in the absence of exceptional circumstance or compelling reason to depart from the same.
	GR No. 164205 2009-09-03	OLDARICO S. TRAVEÑO v. BOBONGON BANANA GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules empower the Labor Arbiter to be the trier of facts in labor cases.[22] Much reliance is thus placed on the Arbiter's findings of fact, having had the opportunity to discuss with the parties and their witnesses the factual matters of the case during the conciliation phase.[23] Just the same, a review of the records of the present case does not warrant a conclusion different from the Arbiter's, as affirmed by the NLRC, that the Cooperative is the employer of petitioners.
	GR No. 168910 2009-08-24	REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. PETER I. GUINMAPANG CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[12] By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.[13] The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[14]
	GR No. 177516 2009-03-13	CONRADO QUESADA v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court is not impressed. Respondent Eugenio, together with the other respondents, participated in the proceedings of the case through their counsel Atty. Teofilo G. Leonidas, Jr. (Atty. Leonidas) who received the court processes in their behalf. It is axiomatic that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client.[21]
	GR No. 176240 2008-10-17	ROLANDO SASAN v. NLRC 4TH DIVISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
"Substantial capital or investment" refers to capital stocks and subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools, equipments, implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in the performance or completion of the job, work or service contracted out.[47] An independent contractor must have either substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others. The law does not require both substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, etc.[48] It is enough that it has substantial capital. In the case of HI, it has proven both.
	GR No. 177785 2008-09-03	RANDY ALMEDA v. ASAHI GLASS PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In labor-only contracting, the statutes create an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered as merely the agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees are directly employed by the principal employer.[17] Therefore, if SSASI was a labor-only contractor, then respondent shall be considered as the employer of petitioners who must bear the liability for the dismissal of the latter, if any.