This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed findings of fact and conclusions of an adjudicative body like the HLURB, which can be considered as a trier of facts on specific matters within its field of expertise, should be considered as binding and conclusive upon the appellate courts. This is in addition to the fact that it was in a better position to assess and evaluate the credibility of the contending parties and the validity of their respective evidence. However, these doctrines hold true only when such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| These petitions were referred to the Court en banc by the Special First Division which had initially ruled on them, most comprehensively in a Decision dated 12 December 2005.[4] They were accepted by the Court en banc in a Resolution dated 26 July 2006. Subsequently, the parties presented their various contentions before the Court in an oral argument held on 24 July 2007, followed by the submission of their respective memoranda. While the cases were under consideration of the Court en banc, the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General was required,[5] and a set of new parties was allowed leave to intervene.[6] | |||||
|
2005-09-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In Your Bus Lines vs. NLRC,[17] this Court excused the appellant for its failure to post the bond because it relied on the notice of the decision which, while stating the requirements for perfecting an appeal, did not mention that a bond must be filed. In Blancaflor vs. NLRC,[18] it was noted that the failure of appellant to post a bond was in part due to the failure of the Labor Arbiter to state the exact amount of back wages and separation pay due; thus, no basis exists for the computation of the amount of the bond to be filed. In Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association vs. NLRC,[19] this Court granted petitioner-appellant's plea to give due course to its appeal despite non-posting of a supersedeas bond on account of its insolvency and poverty. Petitioner-appellant is an association of Negritos performing trash sorting services in the American naval base in Subic Bay. Further, the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner-appellant and private respondent was not established. In UERM-Memorial Medical Center vs. NLRC,[20] the appellant-employer was allowed to post a property bond in lieu of a cash or surety bond. In this case, the judgment involved more than P17M and its precipitate execution could adversely affect the existence of the employer medical center. It also appeared that the real property bond was worth more than P102M, hence, the posting of a real property bond was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Art. 223. | |||||