Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKINGMEN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183915 2011-12-14	MA. JOY TERESA O. BILBAO v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is generally confined only to errors of law. It does not extend to questions of fact. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as in the instant case, where the findings of fact and the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[16] To recall, the Labor Arbiter found that Saudia illegally dismissed Bilbao, while the NLRC and the Court of Appeals are in agreement that Bilbao voluntarily tendered her resignation.
	GR No. 181503 2009-09-18	BIO QUEST MARKETING INC. v. EDMUND REY CARPIO MORALES, J.
To consider every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by a company as a justification of retrenchment[23] would be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who might be merely feigning business losses or reverses in their business ventures to ease out employees.[24]
	GR NO. 165598 2007-08-14	LAGONOY BUS CO. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Under Article 286[15] of the Labor Code, an employer may bona fide suspend the operation of its business for a period not exceeding six months. In such a case, there is no termination of the employment of the employees, but only a temporary displacement. When the suspension of the business operations exceeds six months, then the employment of the employees could be deemed terminated. Worth stressing, if the operation of the business is resumed within six months, it shall be the duty of the employer to reinstate his employees to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, if the latter would indicate their desire to resume work within one month from such resumption of operations.[16]
	GR NO. 166363 2006-08-15	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. JERRY MAGUAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although as a rule, only legal issues may be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is not precluded from delving into and resolving issues of facts,[23] particularly if the findings of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals; if the findings of the NLRC and the appellate court are contrary to the evidence and the record; and in order to give substantial justice to the parties.[24]