Lawyerly

GR No. 206942

2015-02-25

VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this Court being bound by the findings of fact made by the appellate court.[54] The Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[55] The rule, however, is not without exception. In New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC,[56] the Court recognized the following exceptions to the general rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[57]

GR No. 192406

2015-01-21

ONE SHIPPING CORP. v. IMELDA C. PEÑAFIEL

PERALTA, J.

The present petition basically questions the appreciation of facts on the part of the CA. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[6] The Court is thus generally bound by the CA's factual findings. There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing, among which is when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.[7] The present petition falls under the exception due to the different factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA.

GR No. 198093

2014-07-28

FLP ENTERPRISES INC. – FRANCESCO SHOES v. MA. JOERALYN D. DELA CRUZ

PERALTA, J.

After a thorough review of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the CA's determination of grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC and its consequent substitution of its own ruling over that of the latter. Generally, the findings of facts and conclusion of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are entitled to great weight and respect, and even clothed with finality and deemed conclusive upon the parties and binding on the Court, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[11] The findings of fact of an administrative agency, which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor, are accorded great weight on appeal. This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions, such as when, as in this case, the labor tribunals' findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. The CA may then make its own independent evaluation of the facts, even if it may be contrary to that of the LA and the NLRC. Also, where the contesting party's claim appears to be clearly meritorious, or where the broader interest of justice and public policy so requires, the court may, in a certiorari proceeding, correct the error committed. The CA, in view of its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings if it considers the same to be necessary to arrive at a just and equitable decision.[12]

GR No. 178184

2014-01-29

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

After examination of the evidence presented, however, we find that petitioners failed to substantiate adequately the charges of pilferage against respondents. "[T]he quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. x x x Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."[53] Here, the mere filing of a formal charge, to our mind, does not automatically make the dismissal valid. Evidence submitted to support the charge should be evaluated to see if the degree of proof is met to justify respondents' termination. The affidavit executed by Montegrico simply contained the accusations of Abis that respondents committed pilferage, which allegations remain uncorroborated. "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees."[54] The other bits of evidence were also inadequate to support the charge of pilferage. The findings made by GASLI's port captain and internal auditor and the resulting certification executed by De la Rama merely showed an overstatement of fuel consumption as revealed in the Engineer's Voyage Reports. The report of Jade Sea Land Inspection Services only declares the actual usage and amount of fuel consumed for a particular voyage. There are no other sufficient evidence to show that respondents participated in the commission of a serious misconduct or an offense against their employer.

GR No. 197789

2013-07-08

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JOSELITO L. ESTRELLA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In this relation, it is well to stress that the employer bears the burden of proving, through substantial evidence, that the aforesaid just cause or any other valid cause for that matter forms the basis of the employee's dismissal from work.[40] Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[41] As long as this evidentiary threshold is met, the dismissal of the employee should, as a general rule, be upheld.

GR No. 196231

2012-09-04

EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

The essence of due process is that a party is afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[57] Mere opportunity to be heard is sufficient. As long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[58] Besides, petitioner only has himself to blame for limiting his defense through the filing of an Answer. He had squandered a subsequent opportunity to elucidate upon his pleaded defenses by adamantly refusing to attend the scheduled Clarificatory Conference despite notice. The OP recounted as follows

GR No. 191563

2012-06-20

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA v. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION

REYES, J.

The instant petition ascribes misappreciation of facts on the part of the CA, which if allegedly reconsidered, would yield a conclusion favorable to the petitioners. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[30] The Court is thus generally bound by the CA's factual findings. There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing, among which is when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.[31] The instant petition falls under the aforementioned exception in the light of the divergent factual findings of the VA and the CA.

GR No. 174173

2012-03-07

MA. MELISSA A. GALANG v. JULIA MALASUGUI

PEREZ, J.

In AMA Computer College-East Rizal v. Ignacio[40] as reiterated in Gurango v. Best Chemicals and Plastics, Inc.,[41] the Court ruled that: In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. And the quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. An employee's dismissal due to serious misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[42]

GR No. 165427

2011-03-21

BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

During their illicit relationship, petitioner and respondent, together with three more incorporators, were able to establish a manpower services company.[4] Five parcels of land were also acquired during the said period and were registered in petitioner and respondent's names, ostensibly as husband and wife. The lands are briefly described as follows: A 255-square meter real estate property located at Malvar St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 303224 and registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to Betty Lacbayan."[5]

GR No. 152166

2010-10-20

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER v. ESTRELITO NOTARIO

PERALTA, J.

The employee must be furnished two written notices: the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second is a subsequent notice, which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[23]

GR No. 174593

2010-08-25

ALEX GURANGO v. BEST CHEMICALS

CARPIO, J.

[27] G.R. No. 178520, 23 June 2009, 590 SCRA 633.

GR No. 162017

2010-04-23

CALTEX v. HERMIE G. AGAD

CARPIO, J.

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[27]

GR No. 168266

2010-03-05

CARGILL v. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

The Supreme Court may review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals which are in conflict with the findings of the trial court.[24] We find that the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioner was doing business is not supported by evidence.

GR No. 165199

2009-11-27

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. INOCENCIO B. BERBANO

CARPIO, J.

Thus, dismissal from service of an employee is valid if the following requirements are complied with: (a) substantive due process which requires that the ground for dismissal is one of the just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code, and (b) procedural due process which requires that the employee be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.[17] The employee must be furnished two written notices -- the first notice apprises the employee of the particular act or omission for which his dismissal is sought, and the second notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[18]

	GR No. 206942 2015-02-25	VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this Court being bound by the findings of fact made by the appellate court.[54] The Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[55] The rule, however, is not without exception. In New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC,[56] the Court recognized the following exceptions to the general rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[57]
	GR No. 192406 2015-01-21	ONE SHIPPING CORP. v. IMELDA C. PEÑAFIEL PERALTA, J.
The present petition basically questions the appreciation of facts on the part of the CA. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[6] The Court is thus generally bound by the CA's factual findings. There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing, among which is when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.[7] The present petition falls under the exception due to the different factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA.
	GR No. 198093 2014-07-28	FLP ENTERPRISES INC. – FRANCESCO SHOES v. MA. JOERALYN D. DELA CRUZ PERALTA, J.
After a thorough review of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the CA's determination of grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC and its consequent substitution of its own ruling over that of the latter. Generally, the findings of facts and conclusion of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are entitled to great weight and respect, and even clothed with finality and deemed conclusive upon the parties and binding on the Court, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[11] The findings of fact of an administrative agency, which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor, are accorded great weight on appeal. This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions, such as when, as in this case, the labor tribunals' findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. The CA may then make its own independent evaluation of the facts, even if it may be contrary to that of the LA and the NLRC. Also, where the contesting party's claim appears to be clearly meritorious, or where the broader interest of justice and public policy so requires, the court may, in a certiorari proceeding, correct the error committed. The CA, in view of its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings if it considers the same to be necessary to arrive at a just and equitable decision.[12]
	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
After examination of the evidence presented, however, we find that petitioners failed to substantiate adequately the charges of pilferage against respondents. "[T]he quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. x x x Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."[53] Here, the mere filing of a formal charge, to our mind, does not automatically make the dismissal valid. Evidence submitted to support the charge should be evaluated to see if the degree of proof is met to justify respondents' termination. The affidavit executed by Montegrico simply contained the accusations of Abis that respondents committed pilferage, which allegations remain uncorroborated. "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees."[54] The other bits of evidence were also inadequate to support the charge of pilferage. The findings made by GASLI's port captain and internal auditor and the resulting certification executed by De la Rama merely showed an overstatement of fuel consumption as revealed in the Engineer's Voyage Reports. The report of Jade Sea Land Inspection Services only declares the actual usage and amount of fuel consumed for a particular voyage. There are no other sufficient evidence to show that respondents participated in the commission of a serious misconduct or an offense against their employer.
	GR No. 197789 2013-07-08	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JOSELITO L. ESTRELLA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this relation, it is well to stress that the employer bears the burden of proving, through substantial evidence, that the aforesaid just cause or any other valid cause for that matter forms the basis of the employee's dismissal from work.[40] Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[41] As long as this evidentiary threshold is met, the dismissal of the employee should, as a general rule, be upheld.
	GR No. 196231 2012-09-04	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The essence of due process is that a party is afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[57] Mere opportunity to be heard is sufficient. As long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[58] Besides, petitioner only has himself to blame for limiting his defense through the filing of an Answer. He had squandered a subsequent opportunity to elucidate upon his pleaded defenses by adamantly refusing to attend the scheduled Clarificatory Conference despite notice. The OP recounted as follows
	GR No. 191563 2012-06-20	LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA v. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION REYES, J.
The instant petition ascribes misappreciation of facts on the part of the CA, which if allegedly reconsidered, would yield a conclusion favorable to the petitioners. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[30] The Court is thus generally bound by the CA's factual findings. There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing, among which is when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.[31] The instant petition falls under the aforementioned exception in the light of the divergent factual findings of the VA and the CA.
	GR No. 174173 2012-03-07	MA. MELISSA A. GALANG v. JULIA MALASUGUI PEREZ, J.
In AMA Computer College-East Rizal v. Ignacio[40] as reiterated in Gurango v. Best Chemicals and Plastics, Inc.,[41] the Court ruled that: In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. And the quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. An employee's dismissal due to serious misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[42]
	GR No. 165427 2011-03-21	BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
During their illicit relationship, petitioner and respondent, together with three more incorporators, were able to establish a manpower services company.[4] Five parcels of land were also acquired during the said period and were registered in petitioner and respondent's names, ostensibly as husband and wife. The lands are briefly described as follows: A 255-square meter real estate property located at Malvar St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 303224 and registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to Betty Lacbayan."[5]
	GR No. 152166 2010-10-20	ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER v. ESTRELITO NOTARIO PERALTA, J.
The employee must be furnished two written notices: the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second is a subsequent notice, which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[23]
	GR No. 174593 2010-08-25	ALEX GURANGO v. BEST CHEMICALS CARPIO, J.
[27] G.R. No. 178520, 23 June 2009, 590 SCRA 633.
	GR No. 162017 2010-04-23	CALTEX v. HERMIE G. AGAD CARPIO, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[27]
	GR No. 168266 2010-03-05	CARGILL v. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
The Supreme Court may review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals which are in conflict with the findings of the trial court.[24] We find that the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioner was doing business is not supported by evidence.
	GR No. 165199 2009-11-27	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. INOCENCIO B. BERBANO CARPIO, J.
Thus, dismissal from service of an employee is valid if the following requirements are complied with: (a) substantive due process which requires that the ground for dismissal is one of the just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code, and (b) procedural due process which requires that the employee be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.[17] The employee must be furnished two written notices -- the first notice apprises the employee of the particular act or omission for which his dismissal is sought, and the second notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[18]

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO