This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioners' argument and prayer for an award of damages and attorney's fees may not be allowed, since they did not question the NLRC's denial thereof in its December 8, 2008 Decision. Only respondents went up to the CA on certiorari. "It is well-settled that a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court whose decision is brought up on appeal. The exceptions to this rule, such as where there are (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors, do not apply in this case."[43] "[A] party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment modified. All that he can do is to make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised below only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor."[44] | |||||
|
2014-01-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed at the outset that the correctness of the Labor Arbiter's pronouncement on the legality of Del Rosario's dismissal is no longer an issue and is beyond modification. While Manila Water timely appealed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter awarding separation pay to Del Rosario, the latter did not question the dismissal of his illegal termination case.[18] It is settled in our jurisprudence that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the appealed decision.[19] Due process prevents the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal.[20] Having said that, this Court will no longer dwell on the issue of whether or not Del Rosario was illegally dismissed from employment. Included in the closed aspect of the case is respondent's argument that the absence of his counsel when he admitted the charge against him diminished the evidentiary value of such admission. Nonetheless, it may be mentioned that the constitutional right to counsel is available only during custodial investigation. If the investigation is merely administrative conducted by the employer and not a criminal investigation, the admission made during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify dismissal.[21] | |||||