Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIOSCORO RABAGO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178501 2016-01-11	NILO S. RODRIGUEZ v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The logbook was similarly submitted as evidence by PAL against the complainants in the Illegal Dismissal Case now on appeal. Rodriguez, et al., except for Jadie and Baquiran, were signatories in the logbook as returnees,[44] bound by the Resolution dated June 1, 1999 of the DOLE Secretary. The significance and weight accorded by the NLRC to the logbook can no longer be gainsaid considering the declarations of the Court in the 2nd ALPAP case. Moreover, the logbook entries were corroborated by photographs showing Rodriguez, et al., excluding Baquiran, Galisim, Jadie, Wilfredo S. Cruz, and Piamonte, actually participating in the strike. The objection that the photographs were not properly authenticated deserves scant consideration as rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC, where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[45] It is also worth noting that those caught on photographs did not categorically deny being at the strike area on the time/s and date/s the photographs were taken, but assert that they were there in lawful exercise of their right while on official leave or scheduled off-duty, or in the alternative, that they were already dismissed from service as early as June 7, 1998 and their presence at the strike area thereafter was already irrelevant. The Court further concurs in the observation of the NLRC that the official leave or scheduled off-duty of Rodriguez, et al. expired at least two weeks prior to June 26, 1998, yet they did not make any effort to return to work before said date. Rodriguez, et al. instead heeded the advice of their lawyer to report en masse with the other ALPAP members, only proving that they were complying not with the Return-to-Work Order of the DOLE Secretary but the orders of their union and its counsel.
	GR No. 197763 2015-12-07	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM VELASCO JR., J.
The Court explained the reason why cross-examination is not required in the proceedings before the labor arbiter in Reyno v. Manila Electric Company,[28] citing Rabago v. National Labor Relations Commission[29] where the Court ruled:x x x The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. x x x
	GR No. 135808 2008-10-06	SECURITIES v. INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a consequence, in proceedings before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Commission and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, created under laws which authorize summary proceedings, decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers or other documentary evidence only. They are not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence.[59] In fact, the hearings before such agencies do not connote full adversarial proceedings.[60] Thus, it is not necessary for the rules to require affiants to appear and testify and to be cross-examined by the counsel of the adverse party. To require otherwise would negate the summary nature of the administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings.[61] In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Factoran, Jr.,[62] this Court stated that:[I]t is sufficient that administrative findings of fact are supported by evidence, or negatively stated, it is sufficient that findings of fact are not shown to be unsupported by evidence. Substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an administrative finding of fact, and substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
	GR No. 162472 2005-07-28	KAY PRODUCTS v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Anent the second issue, the petitioners argue that the CA erred in declaring that the private respondents had been illegally dismissed, and that there was nothing to support such conclusion. They contend that the appellate court disregarded the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, and instead should have accorded respect and finality to such findings, supported as they were by substantial evidence. The petitioners cited the cases of Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. NLRC,[17] Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna[18] and Rabago v. NLRC,[19] where this Court held that findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the petitioners pray that the CA decision be reversed and set aside, and the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC reinstated.
	GR No. 153157 2003-10-14	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ARTHUR B. TONGSON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Rabago vs. NLRC,[12] we held:"x x x. The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC, where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. x x x"
	GR No. 153660 2003-06-10	PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. BELLOSILLO, J.
The petition is impressed with merit. The issue confronting the Court is not without precedent in jurisprudence. The oft-cited case of Rabago v. NLRC[9]squarely grapples a similar challenge involving the propriety of the use of affidavits without the presentation of affiants for cross-examination. In that case, we held that "the argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only."