Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189629 2014-08-06	DR. PHYLIS C. RIO v. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA-MAKATI PEREZ, J.
Hence, this Petition for Review, which, while it presents the need to look into the matter of petitioner's dismissal, goes into the question of whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, this being the issue in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. The ruling in Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.[9] citing Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co.[10] is apropos: As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate court's reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if they are not supported by substantial evidence. [Underscoring supplied]
	GR Nos. 196280 & 196286 2014-04-02	UNIVERSIDAD DE STA. ISABEL v. MARVIN-JULIAN L. SAMBAJON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court finds no merit in petitioner's interpretation of the Manual of Regulations, supplemented by DOLE-DECS-CHED-TESDA Order No. 01, series of 1996. As we made clear in the afore-cited case of Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center, the teacher remains under probation for the entire duration of the three-year period. Subsequently, in the case of Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.[39] the Court, speaking through Justice Arturo D. Brion, recognized the right of respondent school to determine for itself that it shall use fixed-term employment contracts as its medium for hiring its teachers. Nevertheless, the Court held that the teachers' probationary status should not be disregarded simply because their contracts were fixed-term. Thus: The Conflict: Probationary Status
	GR No. 203186 2013-12-04	XAVIER C. RAMOS v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In labor disputes, the NLRC's findings are said to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. As held in the case of Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,[42] citing Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co.:[43]
	GR No. 170388 2013-09-04	COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO v. EMMANUEL ROJO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,[32] we had occasion to rule that cases dealing with employment on probationary status of teaching personnel are not governed solely by the Labor Code as the law is supplemented, with respect to the period of probation, by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (the Manual). With regard to the probationary period, Section 92 of the 1992 Manual[33] provides:Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to compliance with the Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 188169 2011-11-28	NIÑA JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS v. MADELINE C. MONTECILLO REYES, J.
[33] G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010, 618 SCRA 218, citing Montoya v. Trammed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009, 596 SCRA 334, 343.
	GR No. 192881 2011-11-16	TAMSON’S ENTERPRISES v. CA MENDOZA, J.
It is settled that even if probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure. This means they may only be terminated for a just cause or when they otherwise fail to qualify as regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards made known to them by the employer at the time of their engagement.[16] Consistently, in Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc.,[17] this Court clearly stressed that: Labor, for its part, is given the protection during the probationary period of knowing the company standards the new hires have to meet during the probationary period, and to be judged on the basis of these standards, aside from the usual standards applicable to employees after they achieve permanent status. Under the terms of the Labor Code, these standards should be made known to the [employees] on probationary status at the start of their probationary period, or xxx during which the probationary standards are to be applied. Of critical importance in invoking a failure to meet the probationary standards, is that the [employer] should show as a matter of due process how these standards have been applied. This is effectively the second notice in a dismissal situation that the law requires as a due process guarantee supporting the security of tenure provision, and is in furtherance, too, of the basic rule in employee dismissal that the employer carries the burden of justifying a dismissal. These rules ensure compliance with the limited security of tenure guarantee the law extends to probationary employees.[18] [Emphases supplied]
	GR No. 174179 2011-11-16	KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI SA MWC-EAST ZONE UNION v. MANILA WATER COMPANY BRION, J.
We agree with the petitioners that as a rule, the CA cannot undertake a re-assessment of the evidence presented in the case in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[29] However, the rule admits of exceptions. In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,[30] we held that the CA may examine the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether or not its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, whose absence justifies a finding of grave abuse of discretion. We ruled: We agree with the petitioners that, as a rule in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA does not assess and weigh each piece of evidence introduced in the case. The CA only examines the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether or not the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence whose absence points to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the recent case of Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., we emphasized that: