Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PLASTIMER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. NATALIA C. GOPO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 184397 2015-09-09	ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED CHILDREN PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
This Court, in turn, has the same authority to sift through the factual findings of both the CA and the NLRC in the event of their conflict.[45] This Court, therefore, is not precluded from reviewing the factual issues when there are conflicting findings by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[46]
	GR No. 175002 2013-02-18	PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Parenthetically, in a special civil action for certiorari, the CA is authorized to make its own factual determination when it finds that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in overlooking or disregarding evidence which are material to the controversy. The Court, in turn, has the same authority to sift through the factual findings of both the CA and the NLRC in the event of their conflict. Thus, in Plastimer Industrial Corporation v. Gopo,[46] the Court explained: In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to make its own factual determination. 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. To make this finding, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own factual determination. 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. x x x x (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 163657 2012-04-18	INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. ROEL P. LOGARTA PERALTA, J.
In the case at bar, notwithstanding the fact that respondent's termination from his employment was procedurally infirm, having not complied with the notice requirement, nevertheless the same remains to be for a just, valid and authorized cause, i.e., retrenchment as a valid exercise of management prerogative. To stress, despite the employer's failure to comply with the one-month notice to the DOLE prior to respondent's termination, it is only a procedural infirmity which does not render the retrenchment illegal. In Agabon v. NLRC,[35] this Court ruled that when the dismissal is for a just cause, the absence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.[36]