This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In general, procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are inviolable considering that appeal is not a constitutional right but merely a statutory privilege and that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional.[25] However, procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.[26] Relaxation of the rules may be had when the appeal, on its face, appears to be absolutely meritorious or when there are persuasive or compelling reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[27] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the doctrine that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.[46] The primary rule governing appeal from the ruling of the labor arbiter is Article 223 of the Labor Code which provides: Art. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds: | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has emphasized that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. "From time to time, however, we have recognized exceptions to the Rules but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice."[18] "It is true that procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in the interest of substantial justice."[19] | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears stressing that, in petitions for review on certiorari like the one at bench, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law[16] and does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[17] Whether Escudero has abandoned her job or was illegally dismissed are questions of fact better left for determination by quasi-judicial agencies[18] which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters.[19] Corollarily, the rule is settled that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only great respect but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[20] Time and again, we have reiterated the dictum that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[21] | |||||