Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194709 2013-07-31	MINETTE BAPTISTA v. ROSARIO VILLANUEVA MENDOZA, J.
Petitioners' contention is without merit. Mere absence of a one-on- one confrontation between the petitioners and their complainants does not automatically affect the validity of the proceedings before the Committee. Not all cases necessitate a trial-type hearing.[37] As in this case, what is indispensable is that a party be given the right to explain one's side, which was adequately afforded to the petitioners.
	GR No. 168339 2008-10-10	MA. GREGORIETTA LEILA C. SY v. ALC INDUSTRIES CORONA, J.
Respondents' other contention that they were deprived of due process is likewise devoid of merit. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[17] In Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. CA,[18] we held:The requirements of due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event that the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary. (emphasis supplied).
	GR NO. 161864 2007-04-27	SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ v. SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES AND ERLINDA AUSTRIA QUISUMBING, J.
While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast in stone, it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business.[15] Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[16]
	GR NOS. 146653-54 2006-02-20	WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS v. RICARDO C. SAMANIEGO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On the contention of Westmont and Unilab that they were denied due process, well settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The requirement of due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary.[5]
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[26] Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144134, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 573, 584.
	GR NO. 145271 2005-08-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution.[32]
	GR No. 145271 2005-07-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution.[32]
	GR NO. 157603 2005-06-23	NEECO II v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the said Rule, the Labor Arbiter is given the latitude to determine the necessity for a formal hearing or investigation, once the position papers and other documentary evidence of the parties have been submitted before him. The parties may ask for a hearing but such hearing is not a matter of right of the parties. The Labor Arbiter, in the exercise of his discretion, may deny such request and proceed to decide the case on the basis of the position papers and other documents brought before him without resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in regular courts of justice. The requirement of due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary.[19]
	GR No. 160215 2004-11-10	HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is valid despite that it was signed by NIA's counsel must be answered in the negative. Applicable is the ruling in Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.:[52]