Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
The CA held the president of WWWEC, Jose B. Feliciano, San Mateo and Lariosa jointly and severally liable for the monetary awards of Aliling on the ground that the officers are considered "employers" acting in the interest of the corporation. The CA cited NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines (NYK) v. National Labor Relations Commission[50] in support of its argument. Notably, NYK in turn cited A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC.[51]
	GR NO. 155058 2006-09-26	PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner, however, appeals for liberality. Petitioner does not deserve it. Liberality is not a mantra that, once chanted, will cast away all the infirmities of a petition. Invocation of liberality must be coupled with a showing that there has been a substantial or subsequent compliance with all the technical requirements[32] or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the petition be given due course and decided on the merits.[33] Petitioner has not shown any earnest, even if belated, effort to comply. Instead, it has obstinately clung to the mistaken notion that its attachments were certified true copies of the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution. In its Motion for Reconsideration from the March 25, 2002 CA Resolution, petitioner made no effort to rectify its error by attaching the real certified true copies of the needed documents. Even in the present Petition, copies of the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution petitioners attached are also xerox copies of the certified true copies thereof.[34] There is no basis at all for us to suspend enforcement of the technical requirements of the Rules and allow its Petition.[35]
	GR NO. 152336 2005-06-09	MTM GARMENT MFG. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
As we have repeatedly stressed, the right to file a special civil action of certiorari is neither a natural right nor an essential element of due process; a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.[18]