Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JACINTO RETUYA v. SALIC B. DUMARPA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166581 2015-12-07	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA SERENO, C.J.
On the other hand, backwages are computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, and not merely until promulgation of the Court's decision.[30] However, considering that Solidbank ceased operations in 31 July 2000, we must compute backwages only up to the time of such cessation. To compute "backwages beyond the date of the cessation of business would not only be unjust, but confiscatory, as well as violative of the Constitution depriving the employer of his property rights."[31]
	GR No. 151993 2011-10-19	MARITIME FACTORS INC. v. BIENVENIDO R. HINDANG PERALTA, J.
In a petition for review on certiorari, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[16] We are not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[17] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[18] They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record.[19] We find these exceptions in this case.
	GR No. 156225 2008-01-29	LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC AND COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that the findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous.[16] It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[17] In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[18] Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[19] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[20] They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record.[21] We find none of these exceptions in the present case.