This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The respondents appealed the NLRC's decision to the CA via a petition for certiorari, which may be granted only upon a finding of grave abuse of discretion. In Xavier Ramos v. BPI Family Savings Bank, and/or Alfonso L. Salcedo, Jr.,[34] the Court explained that grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," the discretionary authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. In labor disputes, the NLRC's findings are said to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.[35] Substantial evidence pertains to such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[36] | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, it must be clarified that while the partial bond was initially tainted with defects, i.e., that it was initially issued in favor of MTI and not PTI, and that the bonding company, SSSICI, had no authority to transact business in all courts of the Philippines at that time, these defects had already been cured by the petitioners' posting of Supersedeas Bond No. SS-B-10150, in the full amount of P12,833,000.00, issued on November 8, 2004 by the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Company, Inc.,[71] in timely compliance with the NLRC's September 30, 2004 Order. Verily, the subsequent completion of the bond, in addition to the reasons above-stated, behooves this Court to hold that the NLRC actually had sound bases to take cognizance of petitioners' appeal. As the Court sees it, the NLRC's reinstatement of petitioners' appeal in this case was merely impelled by the doctrine that letter-perfect rules must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice,[72] as well as the Labor Code's mandate to "use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process."[73] It is important to emphasize that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,[74] which clearly is not extant with respect to the NLRC's cognizance of petitioners' appeal before it. | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[29] | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," the discretionary authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.[38] In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] This requirement is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule | |||||