Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHARLES JOSEPH U. RAMOS v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 163924 2009-06-18	'J' MARKETING CORPORATION v. CESAR L. TARAN PERALTA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts.[32] None of the exceptions to the general rule is present in this case. Having said that, We shall now determine whether petitioner is liable to pay respondent his separation pay and other benefits due him.
	GR No. 168210 2008-06-17	COASTAL SAFEWAY MARINE SERVICES QUISUMBING, J.
Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.[32] In our view, conclusive reliance can be placed on such findings.
	GR No. 145402 2008-03-14	MERALCO INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CORPORATION v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts. Besides, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.[47]
	GR NO. 165476 2006-03-10	AGRIPINO V. MOLINA v. PACIFIC PLANS CALLEJO, SR., J.
the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence.[69]
	GR NO. 156994 2005-08-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. RAMON A. UY CALLEJO, SR., J.
To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, the confluence of the following requisites must be established: (a) the loss of confidence must not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper or unjustified; (c) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith; and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence.[25] While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, still, substantial evidence is vital and the burden rests on the employer to establish it.[26] Any other rule would place the employee eternally at the mercy of the employer. Moreover, the term trust and confidence is restricted to managerial employees only.[27]
	GR NO. 156447 2005-04-26	JUAN AGAS v. CARIDAD SABICO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issue raised by the petitioners pervade into the factual findings of the RTC and the appellate court.[26] It bears stressing that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is a matter of discretion.[27] The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact. When supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, and are not reviewable by this Court unless the presence of any exceptional circumstances is established.[28] The petitioners failed to establish any of the exceptional circumstances which would warrant such review.
	GR NO. 148205 2005-02-28	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS v. KAPISANAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA-FFW CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Charles Joseph U. Ramos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Union Bank of the Philippines,[28] the Court held that, in order to validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the following guidelines must be followed: The loss of confidence must not be simulated;
	GR NO. 153894 2005-02-16	ALEX A. BITENG v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR PANGANIBAN, J.
It is a well-established rule, however, that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before this Court.[15]