Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEALCO FARMS v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196936 2014-07-02	MONCHITO R. AMPELOQUIO v. JAKA DISTRIBUTION PEREZ, J.
On the other hand, existence of an employer-employee relationship is established by the presence of the following determinants: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker's conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.[16]
	GR No. 160278 2012-02-08	GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact. This is in line with the well-entrenched doctrine that the Court is not a trier of facts, and this is strictly adhered to in labor cases.[12] Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[13] This is because it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field.[14]
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
Hand in hand with the concept of admission against interest in considering the tax returns, the concept of estoppel - a legal and equitable concept[28] - necessarily must come into play. Tongko's previous admissions in several years of tax returns as an independent agent, as against his belated claim that he was all along an employee, are too diametrically opposed to be simply dismissed or ignored. Interestingly, Justice Velasco's dissenting opinion states that Tongko was forced to declare himself a business or self-employed person by Manulife's persistent refusal to recognize him as its employee.[29] Regrettably, the dissent has shown no basis for this conclusion, an understandable omission since no evidence in fact exists on this point in the records of the case. In fact, what the evidence shows is Tongko's full conformity with, and action as, an independent agent until his relationship with Manulife took a bad turn.