Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARIEL A. TRES REYES v. MAXIM’S TEA HOUSE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 160798 2005-06-08	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, technicalities should not be permitted to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. The Court reiterates that where the ends of substantial justice would be better served, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed.[45]
	GR NO. 155037 2005-04-29	ANVIL ENSEMBLES GARMENT v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. Thus, under the Labor Code, to be a valid ground for dismissal, the negligence must be gross and habitual. Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of even slight care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of the person or property.[10] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[11] Put differently, gross negligence is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[12] In this case, contrary to its claim, the petitioner utterly failed to show that the respondent committed gross negligence as to warrant his dismissal.
	GR No. 158693 2004-11-17	JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded not only respect but even finality if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. This is especially so when such findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[11] However, if the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are conflicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.[12]
	GR No. 152988 2004-08-24	CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE v. CA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Suffice it is to say, this case is an exception to the general rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter are accorded weight and respect on appeal, and even finality. For one thing, the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are contrary to each other; hence, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.[18]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.[10] As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Hence, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.[11] However, a disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission opens the door to a review thereof by this Court. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict with those of the labor arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[12]