This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Further, the Court notes that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals unanimously found that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter.[10] Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[11] The Court finds no reason to depart from the foregoing rule. | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In addition to his back wages, the petitioner is also entitled to separation pay. It cannot be gainsaid that animosity and antagonism have been brewing between the parties since the petitioner was gradually eased out of key positions in RBSJI and to reinstate him will only intensify their hostile working atmosphere.[44] Thus, based on strained relations, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of a year of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year, should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, to be computed from date of his engagement by RBSJI up to the finality of this decision.[45] | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it should be stressed that a determination of the applicability of the doctrine of strained relations is essentially a factual question and, thus, not a proper subject in this petition.[17] This rule, however, admits of exceptions. In cases where the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC are conflicting, the Court, in the exercise of Its equity jurisdiction, may review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.[18] | |||||