Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 168612 2014-12-10	PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. CA LEONEN, J.
In Volkschel Labor Union, et al. v. NLRC, et al., on the settled premise that the judgments of courts and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite time, this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights of parties; hence, their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW), et al. v. Romero, et al., this Court ruled that "a voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity." Under these rulings, it follows that the voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter.[73] (Citations omitted)
	GR NO. 158703 2009-06-26	TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF PHILIPPINES TEACHERS v. CA BRION, J.
We clarify in this regard that the review the TIP filed with the appellate court was not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; it was an appeal to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43. This is consistent with our ruling in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees[35] that decisions of voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary arbitrators should be appealable to the CA. The CA correctly treated the petition of TIP as an appeal filed under Rule 43 which, parenthetically, also requires a statement of material dates in the petition.[36] The rationale for the requirement is to enable the appellate court to determine whether the petition was filed within the period fixed in the rules.[37]
	GR No. 177414 2008-11-14	NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court notes that the appellate court erred in giving due course to petitioner's petition for certiorari, for his proper mode of appeal was for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent had pointed this out in its Comment[16] before the appellate court. The appellate court, however, misappreciated this Court's ruling in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees[17] which, together with Circular 1-95,[18] was subsequently used as basis of the Rules of Court Revision Committee for the inclusion of the decisions of the VA as appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.[19]
	GR No. 169332 2008-02-11	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS JAPAN CO. CORONA, J.
In Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees,[11] the Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is properly classified as a "quasi-judicial instrumentality" and is, thus, within the ambit of Section 9 (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended. Under this section, the Court of Appeals shall exercise: xxx xxx xxx
	GR No. 157775 2007-10-19	LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. LEYECO IV EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In its Comment,[24] respondent avers that Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees[25] laid down the prevailing rule that judgments of the Voluntary Arbitrator are appealable to the CA under Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; that having failed to file the appropriate remedy due to the lapse of the appeal period, petitioner cannot simply invoke Rule 65 for its own convenience, as an alternative remedy.
	GR NO. 165486 2006-05-31	CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY FACULTY v. CA PUNO, J.
We find that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that petitioner used a wrong remedy when it filed a special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court held in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees[12] that decisions of the voluntary arbitrator under the Labor Code are appealable to the Court of Appeals. In that case, the Court observed that the Labor Code was silent as regards the appeals from the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator, unlike those of the Labor Arbiter which may be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court noted, however, that the voluntary arbitrator is a government instrumentality within the contemplation of Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129[13] which provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[14] The decisions of the voluntary arbitrator are akin to those of the Regional Trial Court, and, therefore, should first be appealed to the Court of Appeals before being elevated to this Court. This is in furtherance and consistent with the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial agencies not expressly excepted from the coverage of Section 9 of BP 129. Circular No. 1-91 was later revised and became Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. The Rules of Court Revision Committee incorporated said circular in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The inclusion of the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator in the Rule was based on the Court's pronouncements in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees.[15] Petitioner's argument, therefore, that the ruling in said case is inapplicable in this case is without merit.
	GR No. 138094 2003-05-29	MARILOU GUANZON APALISOK v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK RADIO STATION DYKC CARPIO MORALES, J.
By Resolution[10] of December 13, 1995, the Third Division of this Court referred G. R. No. 122841 to the Court of Appeals, following the case of Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, et al.[11] holding that decisions or awards of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators in labor cases are reviewable by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 143375 2001-07-06	RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
In Luzon Development Bank v. Luzon Development Bank Employees,[9] we held that a voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency, hence his decisions and awards are appealable to the Court of Appeals. This is so because the awards of voluntary arbitrators become final and executory upon the lapse of the period to appeal;[10] and since their awards determine the rights of parties, their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court. Therefore, the proper remedy from an award of a voluntary arbitrator is a petition for review to the Court of Appeals, following Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which provided for a uniform procedure for appellate review of all adjudications of quasi-judicial entities, which is now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.