This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| On a final note, this Court reminds the parties seeking the ultimate relief of certiorari to observe the rules, since nonobservance thereof cannot be brushed aside as a "mere technicality."[43] Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[44] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary for an effective and expeditious administration of justice.[20] Litigations must end. Based on the material facts of this case, no cogent reason exists for us to depart from the general rule and create an exception by liberally construing the technical rules of procedure in favor of respondents. | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The evidence for petitioners established that respondent was required to report for work after he was relieved from his post on September 7, 1998 at Westmont Pharma Bonaventure. Thus, in Assignment Order No. 2485 dated September 7, 1998, respondent was assigned to headquarters effective September 8, 1998, after he was relieved from his post at the Westmont Bonaventure as requested by the client. It should be noted at this juncture that most contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the replacement of the guards assigned to it, and a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and his agency.[9] Also, an employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one area of operation to another, or from one office to another, or in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges; and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[10] On this score, respondent failed to show that his relief was done in bad faith or with grave abuse of discretion. | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, petitioners failed to show any compelling reason for not resorting to the proper remedy. Instead, we find from our perusal of their pleadings before the appellate court that they stoutly and persistently insisted that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was their correct remedy. First, in instituting CA-G.R. SP No. 51288, petitioners categorically invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to have the questioned orders of the DAR Secretary declared null and void for having " been issued and promulgated with grave abuse of discretion . . . a mounting to lack of jurisdiction." Note that it is precisely the office of an action for certiorari under Rule 65 to correct errors of jurisdiction. Second, after the appellate court dismissed their petition on the ground that the proper remedy was a petition for review, petitioners continued to insist in their motion for reconsideration that under Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657, a petition for certiorari is both adequate and proper in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288. It was only as an afterthought that they asked the appellate court to treat their special civil action for certiorari as a petition for review, after a belated and grudging admission that their reliance on Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 was an honest mistake or excusable error. (Emphasis supplied) Time and again, this Court has upheld dismissals of incorrect appeals, even if these were timely filed. In Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc.,[25] this Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition for review under Rule 43 to question a decision because the proper mode of appeal should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. We refused to ignore the procedural requirements and brush aside technicalities, thus - | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Reiterated in Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc.: [36] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -- provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[26] This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively.[27] The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[28] | |||||