This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| What is more, as previously discussed, the resulting rulings of the Court of Appeals in the petition for certiorari and that of DOLE Region VI in the motion for reconsideration are contradictory, so that only one of them can be legally correct and enforceable. They may not co-exist. Such conflicting rulings are precisely what the rules against forum shopping seek to prevent. In such a situation, We choose to uphold the ruling of DOLE Region VI because it is issued by the proper and primary agency to rule on the same,[83] because it is the adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,[84] because certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that must be availed of only if there is manifest grave abuse of discretion,[85] and because declaring otherwise will amount to rewarding LFUC's own disobedience to the rules against forum shopping. | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| actions prior and immediately before the scheduled certification election, while seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive bargaining representative. In Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas,[17] the Court ruled that a certification election was the sole concern of the workers, save when the employer itself had to file the petition x x x, but even after such filing, its role in the certification process ceased and became merely a bystander. Thus, petitioners had no business persuading and/or assisting its employees in their legally protected independent process of selecting their exclusive bargaining representative. The fact and peculiar timing of the field trip sponsored by petitioners for its employees not affiliated with THS-GQ Union, although a positive enticement, was undoubtedly extraneous influence designed to impede respondents in their quest to be certified. This cannot be countenanced. Not content with achieving a "no union" vote in the certification election, petitioners launched a vindictive campaign against union members by assigning work on a rotational basis while subcontractors performed the latter's functions regularly. Worse, some of the respondents | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This manner of review was reiterated in Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas, etc., et al.,[31] where the Court limited its review under Rule 45 of the CA's decision in a labor case to the determination of whether the CA correctly resolved the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the Secretary of Labor, and not on the basis of whether the latter's decision on the merits of the case was strictly correct. | |||||