Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 213696 2015-12-09	QUANTUM FOODS v. MARCELINO ESLOYO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the present case, it is apparent that the plausible merit of the case was the "special circumstance" or "compelling reason"[61] that prompted the NLRC to relax the certification requirement and give due course to QFI's appeal as it, in fact, arrived at a contrary ruling from that of the LA. It is well to emphasize that technical rules are not binding in cases submitted before the NLRC. In fact, labor officials are enjoined to use every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process.[62] Consequently, the NLRC cannot be faulted for relaxing its own rules in the interest of substantial justice.
	GR No. 191714 2014-02-26	T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION MENDOZA, J.
cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence,[18] or that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[19] In fine, mindful of the nature of the charge of ULP, including its civil and/or criminal consequences, the Court finds that the NLRC, as correctly sustained by the CA, had sufficient factual and legal bases to support its finding of ULP.