Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANI RURAL BANK v. TERESA DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 178501 2016-01-11	NILO S. RODRIGUEZ v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Following latest jurisprudence,[46] Jadie is entitled to the following reliefs/awards for her illegal dismissal: (1) separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement; (2) backwages from June 9, 1998; (3) longevity pay at P500.00/month for every year of service based on seniority date falling after June 9, 1998; (4) Christmas bonuses; (5) Jadie's proportionate share in the P5 Million contribution of PAL to the Retirement Fund; and (5) cash equivalent of vacation leaves and sick leaves which Jadie earned after June 9, 1998. All of the aforementioned awards shall be computed until finality of this Decision.
	GR No. 166581 2015-12-07	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA SERENO, C.J.
On the other hand, backwages are computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, and not merely until promulgation of the Court's decision.[30] However, considering that Solidbank ceased operations in 31 July 2000, we must compute backwages only up to the time of such cessation. To compute "backwages beyond the date of the cessation of business would not only be unjust, but confiscatory, as well as violative of the Constitution depriving the employer of his property rights."[31]
	GR No. 189229 2015-11-23	REYNALDO NOBLADO v. PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO PERALTA, J.
In addition to payment of backwages, petitioners are also entitled to separation pay[42] equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year, from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the finality of this judgment, as an alternative to reinstatement.[43]
	GR No. 193990 2015-10-14	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. JULIO C. CANJA PERALTA, J.
We likewise affirm the appellate court's modification of the payment of separation pay and backwages. The case of Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman,[22] is instructive, to wit: Under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof:
	GR No. 199660 2015-07-13	U-BIX CORPORATION v. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO DEL CASTILLO, J.
This Court has already meticulously explained in Bani Rural Bank Inc. v. De Guzman[50] that:The computation of separation pay is based on the length of the employee's service; and the computation of backwages is based on the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working.
	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman,[74] this court discussed the primary issues to be addressed in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari in labor cases: In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?
	GR No. 160107 2014-10-22	SPS. JAIME SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN v. BPI FAMILY BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioners thereby explicitly acknowledged that BPI Family Bank had granted the housing loan in consideration of their employer-employee relationship. They were thus presumed to understand the conditions for the grant of their housing loan. Considering that the maturity of their loan obligation did not depend on the legality of their termination from employment, their assertion that the resolution of their labor complaint for illegal dismissal was prejudicial to the ripening of BPI Family's cause of action was properly rejected. Indeed, a finding of illegal dismissal in their favor would not automatically and exclusively result in their reinstatement. As fittingly ruled in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman:[39]
	GR No. 185345 2014-09-10	RONNIE L. ABING v. NLRC REYES, J.
It is settled that a review of the decision of the CA in a labor case under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited only to a review of errors of law imputed to the CA. We reiterate what was elucidated in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman[16] that: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[17] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 198640 2014-04-23	CARLO F. SUNGA v. VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION BRION, J.
Grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, has been defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to or equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. There is grave abuse of discretion when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[16]