This case has been cited 25 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This situation is similar to the procedural issue we addressed in the case of Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation[25] where we faced the question of how to review a Rule 45 petition before us, a CA decision made under Rule 65. We clarified in this cited case the kind of review that this Court should undertake given the distinctions between the two remedies. In Rule 45, we consider the correctness of the decision made by an inferior court. In contrast, a Rule 65 review focuses on jurisdictional errors. | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In other words, in the present Rule 45 petition, we proceed from the premise that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. Within this narrow scope of our Rule 45 review, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[25] | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In situations where insufficient or insubstantial evidence have been adduced to support the findings under review, or when conclusions go beyond bare and incomplete facts submitted by the claimant, grave abuse of discretion may result and the Court is permitted to address factual issues. But, in this task, the Court's factual review power is exercised only to the extent necessary to determine whether the CA correctly reversed for grave abuse of discretion the NLRC decision that dismissed Ravena's disability benefits claim for lack of merit.[26] | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[11] We laid down the manner of review of the decisions of the CA in labor cases, as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, we review the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct. In other words, we proceed from the premise that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. Within this limited scope of our Rule 45 review, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[24] | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case, was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review under Rule 45, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?"[53] | |||||
|
2014-07-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA's decision rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding, this Court's power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. This is in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors, which we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[32] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[33] | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The assailed CA decision before us is challenged through a Rule 45[14] petition, a remedy limited to pure questions of law. In this mode of review, we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not necessarily on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was strictly correct.[15] | |||||
|
2014-04-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, it bears mentioning that the performance standard contemplated by law should not, in all cases, be contained in a specialized system of feedbacks or evaluation. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that not all employers, such as simple businesses or small-scale enterprises, have a sophisticated form of human resource management, so much so that the adoption of technical indicators as utilized through "comment cards" or "appraisal" tools should not be treated as a prerequisite for every case of probationary engagement. In fact, even if a system of such kind is employed and the procedures for its implementation are not followed, once an employer determines that the probationary employee fails to meet the standards required for his regularization, the former is not precluded from dismissing the latter. The rule is that when a valid cause for termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC[9] (Agabon) and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[10] (Jaka). In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer's compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.[11] Hence, although Abbott did not comply with its own termination procedure, its non-compliance thereof would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminate Alcaraz's employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and thereby ordered to pay nominal damages. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, what we review are the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct. Otherwise stated, we proceed from the premise that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. Within this narrow scope of our Rule 45 review, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[20] | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, on the other hand, confines this Court to a review of the case solely on pure questions of law. In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[23] we said that in ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the challenged NLRC decision. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, we review the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error undertaken in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case made under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the challenged NLRC decision. In question form, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[15] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| At this point, we reiterate the settled rule that in this jurisdiction, only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari.[38] This Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors, which the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision.[39] In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA's Rule 65 decision in a labor case, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined, i.e., the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[40] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[41] | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, we review the CA's decision rendered under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Our power of review under the present petition is limited to legal errors that the CA might have committed in issuing its assailed decision,[19] in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors which we undertake in an original certiorari (Rule 65) action.[20] | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A review of the CA's decision in a labor case, brought to the Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is limited to a review of errors of law imputed to the CA. In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[30] we laid down the basic approach in reviews of Rule 45 decisions of the CA in labor cases, as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to the review of questions of law,[25] i.e., to legal errors that the CA may have committed in its decision,[26] in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in original certiorari actions under Rule 65.[27] In reviewing the legal correctness of a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, and not strictly on the basis of whether the NLRC decision under review is intrinsically correct.[28] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[29] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We will only touch these factual issues in the course of determining whether the CA correctly ruled whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in the process of deducing its conclusions from the evidence proffered by the parties. In reviewing in this Rule 45 petition the CA's decision on a Rule 65 petition, we will answer the question: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on this case? [35] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Inocencio, however, failed to seek a second opinion from a physician of his choice. As already mentioned, Inocencio did not present any proof of work-relatedness other than his bare allegations. We, thus, have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail. To recapifulate, the CA properly affirmed the findings of the NLRC that Inocencio's illness was not work-related. The NLRC's findings of facts have sufficient basis in evidence and in the records of the case and, in our own view, far from the arbitrariness that characterizes excess of jurisdiction. If Inocencio had any basis at all to support his claim, such basis might have been found after considering that he was medically fit when he boarded the ship based on the requisite PEME. Under this Court's ruling in Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[23] work-relatedness could possibly have been show, since the cancer of the tonsil, already latent when Inocencio boarded his ship, "flared up" after work-related stresses intervened. In the absence, however, of any duly medically proven work relatedness, Inocencio cannot . be accorded permanent total disability benefits. | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[17] (citations omitted; italics and emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We hold that the CA is correct in ruling thus. The company-designated physician has cleared petitioner for employment resumption after two months of continuous treatment and after medication has successfully controlled his hypertension. As aptly held by the CA, the extensive medical attention given by the company-designated physician to petitioner enabled the former to acquire a detailed knowledge and familiarity of petitioner's medical condition. This enabled the company-designated physician to arrive at a more accurate prognosis of petitioner's disability as compared to other physicians not privy to petitioner's case from the beginning. It has been held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seaman's illness, is more qualified to assess the seaman's disability.[34] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As discussed below, our review of the records and of the CA decision shows that the CA erred in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in awarding the petitioners ten percent (10%) attorney's fees without basis in fact and in law. Corollary to the above-cited rule is the basic approach in the Rule 45 review of Rule 65 decisions of the CA in labor cases which we articulated in Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation[32] as a guide and reminder to the CA. We laid down that: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[33] (italics and emphases supplied) | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[13] we laid down the basic approach that should be followed in the review of CA decisions in labor cases, thus: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? | |||||
|
2010-04-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,[26] we laid down our basic approach in the review of Rule 65 decisions of the CA in labor cases, as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? | |||||