Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 196142 2014-03-26	VENUS B. CASTILLO v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The written statements of petitioners' co-employees admitting their participation in the scheme are admissible to establish the plan or scheme to defraud Prudentialife; the latter had the right to rely on them for such purpose. The argument that the said statements are hearsay because the authors thereof were not presented for cross-examination does not persuade; the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before the NLRC, which are summary in nature and decisions may be made on the basis of position papers.[41] Besides, these written declarations do not bear directly on petitioners' participation in the scheme; their guilt has been established by evidence other than these statements.
	GR No. 177407 2011-02-09	RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA v. BOARD OF MEDICINE NACHURA, J.
To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the BOM.[6] Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence,[7] in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have held that: [I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.[8]
	GR No. 168923 2008-11-28	BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN v. CA NACHURA, J.
In a compromise agreement putting an end to a lawsuit, each of the parties is motivated by the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing.[54] Absent any palpable inequity in its terms, and there appears no such inequity obtaining in this case, the same must be recognized as a valid and binding transaction.[55]
	GR No. 163210 2008-08-13	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.[17]
	GR NO. 157619 2006-07-17	C.F. SHARP v. RENATO ZIALCITA QUISUMBING, J.
On the first issue, the petitioner contends that Tanoy's affidavit should be given probative value although he was not presented as witness and cross-examined. We agree. In labor cases the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not always controlling.[13] Trial-type hearings are not required in labor cases and these may be decided on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits.[14] It is not necessary for the affiants to appear and testify and be cross-examined by the counsel for the adverse party.[15] It is sufficient that the documents submitted by the parties have a bearing on the issue at hand and support the positions taken by them.[16]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
The respondent disputes the admissibility of Busa's sworn statements for being hearsay since the latter was not presented for cross-examination. This argument, however, is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[37]
	GR NO. 161608 2005-08-09	LEONCIO A. AMADORE v. ALBERTO G. ROMULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is settled that rules of procedure are, as a matter of course, construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies.[39] Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.[40] Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice.[41]
	GR NO. 159556 2005-05-26	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing incidents, culled from the affidavits of the passengers and the documentary evidence, indubitably establish respondent De Leon's involvement in the fraudulent refund of tickets to the petitioner's prejudice. The affidavits of Divinagracia, Espinal, the Mondragons, Dureza and Anastacio Villanueva, even if they did not testify during the hearings before the Labor Arbiter, were properly given evidentiary weight. It is recognized that administrative bodies like the NLRC, including the Labor Arbiter, are not bound by the technical niceties of the law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.[36] Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC, where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers.[37]
	GR NO. 140079 2005-03-31	AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO v. CA CORONA, J.
Further, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.[8] Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them.[9] In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[10]