Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATLAS FARMS v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 198465 2015-04-22	LITEX GLASS v. DOMINADOR B. SANCHEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Suffice it to say, however, that the issue of whether Sanchez was dismissed from employment is essentially a question of fact[26] which cannot be raised in this petition for review on certiorari. Besides, we see no compelling reason to deviate from the finding of fact of the CA, which is in absolute agreement with those of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, that Sanchez was dismissed from employment. "[FJactual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality"[27] by this Court when supported by substantial evidence and especially when affirmed by the CA.[28] Here, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were unanimous in finding Sanchez's narration of the circumstances surrounding his illegal dismissal credible.
	GR No. 178505 2008-09-30	CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Considering that reinstatement is no longer possible on the ground that INNODATA had ceased its operations in June 2002 due to business losses, the proper award is separation pay equivalent to one month pay[31] for every year of service, to be computed from the commencement of their employment up to the closure of INNODATA.
	GR NO. 168096 2007-08-28	ALEX B. CARLOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Undoubtedly, private respondents are entitled to the payment of full backwages, that is, without deducting their earnings elsewhere during the periods of their illegal dismissal. However, where, as in this case, reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations between the parties, separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service shall be granted.[22]
	GR NO. 136211 2005-03-31	HEIRS OF VICENTE HIDALGO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
… [I]n so far as the transfer of ownership of lands duly executed prior to October 21, 1972 but not registered with the Register of Deeds concerned before said date shall not be considered a valid transfer of ownership, and therefore the land shall be placed under Operation Land Transfer. In order that the foregoing transfers of ownership [may] [be] binding upon the tenants, such tenants should have knowledge of such transfer/conveyance prior to October 21, 1972, have recognized the person of the new owners and have been paying rentals/amortization to such new owners. Records show that it does not contain substantial evidence that the tenants have actual knowledge prior to October 21, 1972 ….[15] This factual finding of the DAR is entitled to great weight. Factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that this Court is not a trier of facts.[16]