Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTER B. MARALIT v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203882 2016-01-11	LORELEI O. ILADAN v. LA SUERTE INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER AGENCY DEL CASTILLO, J.
Iladan's arguments are untenable. In a special civil action for certiorari, the CA has ample authority to receive and review the evidence and make its own factual determination.[21] Thus, the CA is not precluded from reviewing factual findings and conclusions of the NLRC when it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding evidence material to the controversy.[22] In the present case, we find that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion because their tactual findings were arrived at in disregard of the evidence.
	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
Applying these cases, the general rule is that in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, this court will not review the factual determination of the administrative bodies governing labor, as well as the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals can conduct its own factual determination to ascertain whether the National Labor Relations Commission has committed grave abuse of discretion.[78] "In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."[79]
	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In labor cases, if the petitioner before this court can show grave abuse of discretion on the part of trie National Labor Relations Commission, the assailed Court of Appeals ruling (in the Rule 65 proceedings) will be reversed. "Labor officials commit grave abuse of discretion when their A factual findings are arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence."[82] If the petitioner can show that "the [labor] tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy,"[83] the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission may be subjected to review and ultimately rejected.[84]
	GR No. 183575 2011-04-11	SPS. ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO v. LBC BANK CARPIO, J.
In Maralit v. Philippine National Bank,[14] where petitioner Maralit questioned the appellate court's admission and appreciation of a belatedly submitted documentary evidence, the Court held that "[i]n a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve factual issues." The Court explained further: Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, states that, "The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings."[15]
	GR No. 183390 2011-02-16	PLASTIMER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. NATALIA C. GOPO CARPIO, J.
In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to make its own factual determination.[8] Thus, the Court of Appeals can grant a petition for certiorari when it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding evidence material to the controversy.[9] To make this finding, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own factual determination.[10] In the same manner, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual issues when there are conflicting findings by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[11] In this case, we find that the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are more in accord with the evidence on record.
	GR Nos. 170542-43 2010-12-13	ANTONIO A. ABOC v. METROPOLITAN BANK MENDOZA, J.
The evidence shows that he was afforded due process. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. A formal or trial-type hearing is not essential.[28] In this regard, the Court agrees with the CA when it wrote: Regarding the procedural requirements of notice and hearing, records show Aboc was duly notified through the letter dated 29 January 1998 asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated. In fact, Aboc replied to the same by submitting a written explanation on 6 February 1998. We likewise find that he was duly afforded ample opportunity to defend himself during the conference conducted on 10 February. Aboc's contention that the conference he attended cannot substitute the "hearing mandated by the Labor Code is bereft of merit. A formal trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.[29]