This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court, however, has recognized specific instances of the impracticality for the Labor Arbiter to follow the position paper method of disposing cases; thus, formal or clarificatory hearings must be had in cases of termination of employment: such as, when claims are not properly ventilated for lack of proper determination whether complainant employee was a rank-and-file or a managerial employee,[60] that the Labor Arbiter cannot rely solely on the parties' bare allegations when the affidavits submitted presented conflicting factual issues,[61] and considering the dearth of evidence presented by complainants the Labor Arbiter should have set the case for hearing.[62] | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In Batongbacal v. Associated Bank, we remanded the case for further proceedings as "equity and justice demand that not only the factual issue of whether or not an assistant vice-president is a managerial employee, but also whether petitioner is entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages, should be considered."[8] In Greenhills Airconditioning and Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[9] we also put to task the Labor Arbiter for issuing an order submitting the case for decision without conducting a hearing. As such, the Labor Arbiter's Decision was rendered merely upon his reliance on the bare allegations of the parties in their position papers. While the parties submitted documentary evidence in Progress Homes v. NLRC[10] it was clear that a hearing was still required in order to ventilate the factual issues. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that the petitioners are bound to prosecute their complaint with assiduousness. They were obliged to give the necessary assistance to their counsel, as their interest in the outcome of the case was at stake. They were wrong to expect that all they needed was to sit back, relax and await a favorable outcome.[37] | |||||