Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DR. PEDRITO F. REYES v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
As to the award of attorney's fees, by reason of his illegal dismissal, respondent was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest.[39] Moreover, in labor cases, although an express finding of fact and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award of attorney's fees, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[40] Thus, it is but just and proper that the same should be awarded to respondent.
	GR No. 168753 2008-07-09	PHILIMARE v. BENEDICTO F. SUGANOB QUISUMBING, J.
We rule against remanding the case to the labor arbiter since it will only cause further delay and may frustrate speedy justice and, in any event, would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would eventually end up with this Court.[16] Also, this Court has repeatedly ruled that delay in the settlement of labor cases cannot be countenanced. Not only does it involve the survival of an employee and his loved ones who are dependent on him for food, shelter, clothing, medicine and education, it also wears down the meager resources of the workers.[17]
	GR NO. 157977 2006-02-27	EDUARDO TOLENTINO RODRIGUEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MANILA – BRANCH 17 QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, considering that remanding the case to the court a quo will only delay the final resolution of the case as in all probability it would only end up with us again,[19] we will decide if Imelda's bail was validly cancelled.
	GR NO. 154798 2005-10-20	CRYSTAL SHIPPING v. DEO P. NATIVIDAD QUISUMBING, J.
Considering that property rights of both parties are involved here, we will give due course to the instant petition. Remanding the case to the court a quo will only frustrate speedy justice and, in any event, would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would end up with this Court. [20] Thus, we shall bring the present controversy to rest by deciding on the appropriate disability benefits that respondent is entitled to.
	GR NO. 153148 2005-08-15	SHIE JIE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee, who finds himself in a situation in which he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.[5] Acceptance of a resignation tendered by an employee is necessary to make the resignation effective.[6] No such acceptance, however, was shown in the instant case.
	GR No. 153148 2005-07-15	SHIE JIE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee, who finds himself in a situation in which he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.[5] Acceptance of a resignation tendered by an employee is necessary to make the resignation effective.[6] No such acceptance, however, was shown in the instant case.
	GR NO. 154308 2005-03-10	BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
In his petition, petitioner only included the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration. However, since the petitioner subsequently submitted the complete attachments required in his motion for reconsideration, in accordance with our decision in Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[14] we will now decide the case. A remand to the Court of Appeals will merely unduly delay its disposition.
	GR NO. 152322 2005-02-15	ERNESTO C. VERCELES v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS-DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, with the least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process.[34] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[35] In this case, it cannot be said that there was a denial of due process on the part of the petitioners because they were given all the chances to refute the allegations of the private respondents, and the delay in the proceedings before the DOLE-NCR was clearly attributable to them.