Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209689 2015-12-02	MARISSA B. QUIRANTE v. OROPORT CARGO HANDLING SERVICES REYES, J.
Fourth. Quirante was dismissed in 2007. LA Magbanua ordered her reinstatement. However, due to the passage of a long period of time rendering reinstatement infeasible, "impracticable and hardly in the best interest of the parties,"[49] the Court now finds the propriety of awarding separation pay instead. Separation pay is equivalent to at least one month pay, or one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher (with a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year), computed from the time of employment or engagement up to the finality of the decision.[50]
	GR Nos. 178382-83 2015-09-23	CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA v. JOSEPH BASSO JARDELEZA, J.
Thus, the Court of Appeals may grant the petition when the factual hidings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when its necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.[64] To make these findings, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own factual determination.[65]
	GR No. 194686 2015-09-23	TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO PERALTA, J.
It was held that in labor cases elevated to it via petition for certiorari, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC in relation to all other evidence on record.[31] To make this finding, the CA necessarily has to view the evidence if only to determine if the NLRC ruling had basis in evidence.[32]
	GR No. 184397 2015-09-09	ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED CHILDREN PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
It is settled that in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the issues are limited to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. However, in labor cases elevated to it via petition for certiorari, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC in relation to all other evidence on record.[41]
	GR No. 206562 2015-01-21	UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. DELIA MALIPOT PERALTA, J.
Moreover, among the powers of the Commission as provided in Section 218 of the Labor Code is that the Commission may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, statement of accounts, agreements, and others.[21] In addition, the Commission may, among other things, conduct investigation for the determination of a question, matter or controversy within its jurisdiction, proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party thereto who has been summoned or served with notice to appear, conduct its proceedings or any part thereof in public or in private, adjourn its hearings to any time and place, refer technical matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his report as evidence after hearing of the parties upon due notice.[22] From the foregoing, it can be inferred that the NLRC can receive evidence on cases appealed before the Commission, otherwise, its factual conclusions would not have been given great respect, much weight, and relevance[23] when an adverse party assails the decision of the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA and then to this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45.[24]