Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions.[6] However, there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule, as in this case, when the factual findings of the NLRC as affirmed by the CA contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.[7] In cases like this, it is this Court's task, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to re-evaluate and review the factual issues by looking into the records of the case and re-examining the questioned findings.[8]
	AM NO. 2009-04-SC 2009-09-04	RE: COMPLAINT OF ATTY. WILHELMINA D. GERONGA PER CURIAM
Indeed, Romero's gross negligence in driving the shuttle bus is evident. 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 persons or property. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[6]
	GR NO. 179807 2009-07-31	RAMY GALLEGO v. BAYER PHILIPPINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the appellate court's decisions,[19] and the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.[20] Be that as it may, when, as here, the findings of the NLRC contradict 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.[21]
	GR NO. 155731 2007-09-03	LOLITA LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is a settled rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions,[7] there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule, as in this case, when the factual findings of the NLRC as affirmed by the CA contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.[8] In that event, it is this Court's task, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to re-evaluate and review the factual issues by looking into the records of the case and re-examining the questioned findings.[9]
	GR NO. 146762 2007-01-30	CULVER B. SUICO v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Company policies or practices are binding on the parties.[60] Some can ripen into an obligation on the part of the employer,[61] such as those which confer benefits on employees [62] or regulate the procedures and requirements for their termination.[63] Thus, in Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB) v. Court of Appeals,[64] the Court held that the employer BLTB is obliged under the Service Manual it issued to grant an erring employee the right to be heard and defend himself, and to apply the table of penalties fixed therein.
	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
Indeed, an employer, in the exercise of its management prerogative, may hire an employee on a probationary basis in order to determine his fitness to perform his work. The employee's services may be terminated for a just cause or for his failure to qualify as a regular employee based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of his engagement.[25]
	GR NO. 161158 2005-05-09	PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. PABLITO V. MOLDEZ PUNO, J.
A review of the records of the case reveals no compelling reason to disturb the identical rulings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal consequences of an illegal dismissal are reinstatement of the employee without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.[8] Clearly, the law intended reinstatement to be the general rule. It is only when reinstatement is no longer feasible that payment of separation pay is awarded to an illegally dismissed employee. [9]
	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.