Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164856 2009-01-20	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Prior to Genuino, there had been no known similar case containing a dispositive portion where the employee was required to refund the salaries received on payroll reinstatement. In fact, in a catena of cases,[15] the Court did not order the refund of salaries garnished or received by payroll-reinstated employees despite a subsequent reversal of the reinstatement order.
	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The employer must prove compliance with all the foregoing requirements.[45]
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It cannot be gainsaid that the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[49] Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[50] As has often been stated, it is far better to dispose of a case on the merits which is a primordial end rather than on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in injustice.[51]