This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it must be stated that respondent's failure to file an appropriate appeal or petition from the respective dispositions of the NLRC and the CA precludes her from questioning these dispositions at this stage. "The rule is clear that no modification of judgment could be granted to a party who did not appeal."[39] Thus, respondent's pleas for reinstatement and the payment of backwages, cash bond, maternity leave benefits, moral damages, overtime pay, and attorney's fees may no longer be taken up. | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Verily, the determination of the amount of reasonable attorney's fees requires the presentation of evidence and a full-blown trial.[59] It would be only after due hearing and evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties that the trial court can render judgment as to the propriety of the amount to be awarded. The Decision dated December 1, 2004 did not mention that there was a hearing conducted or that the parties were required to appear before the trial court or that they submitted pleadings with regard to the issue of reasonableness of the petitioner's attorney's fees. The important thing that the trial court missed out is the fact that what is suspended is merely the execution of the Separate Judgment dated July 22, 1997, pending the determination of the propriety of the petitioner's attorney's fees. The Decision in G.R. No. 127079 should never be construed as authorizing the trial court to amend or modify what the parties have set forth in their compromise agreement (in the MOA and Amendatory Agreement), which was duly approved in the Separate Judgment dated July 22, 1997. | |||||