This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule is that the burden of proof lies with the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just cause.[20] In the present case, the petitioner claims that there was no illegal dismissal since the respondent abandoned his job. The petitioner points out that it wrote the respondent various memoranda requiring him to explain why he incurred absences without leave, and requiring him as well to report for work; the respondent, however, never bothered to reply in writing. | |||||
|
2009-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Neither can we treat the instant petition as one having been filed under Rule 45. We can only treat a petition wrongly filed under Rule 65 as one filed under Rule 45 if petitioner had alleged grave abuse of discretion in its petition under the following circumstances: (1) If the petition is filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from; or (2) If the petition is meritorious.[25] The instant case, however, does not fall under either of the two exceptions because Hanjin's petition was filed 60 days after notice of the assailed judgment and in our considered view, the issues presented by the petition lacks merit. | |||||
|
2008-09-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In addition, petitioners could have easily presented the original Registry Receipt No. A-2094. It would have constituted the best evidence of the fact of mailing on 7 February 2006, even if a different date had been stamped on the envelope of the subject registered mail. Regrettably, petitioners have not seen fit to present such original. Their continued failure to present the original receipt can only lead one to remember the well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his adversary.[33] Mere photocopy of Registry Receipt No. A-2094 militates against their position as there is no indicium of its authenticity. A mere photocopy lacks assurance of its genuineness, considering that photocopies can easily be tampered with. | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is clear that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should raise only questions of law, subject to certain exceptions.[6] Whether or not respondents were project employees or regular employees is a question of fact.[7] | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court cannot review the findings of fact by the SSC (and affirmed by the CA) that the employment of Tinaytina with petitioner was from January 1976 to November 1978. Similarly, we cannot disturb public respondents' conclusion of fact that petitioner misrepresented Tinaytina's true date of employment. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal's evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[29] This Court is proscribed from examining the evidence and weighing the same in a petition for certiorari.[30] In one case, we declared:It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari'[S]tated [otherwise], factual matters cannot normally be inquired into by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. This Court cannot be tasked to go over the proof presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again in order to ascertain if [the appellate courts] were correct in according superior credit to this or to that piece of evidence of one party or the other.[31] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, in Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., v. CA, we held that the remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[19] Thus, a party should not join both petitions in one pleading. In Mercado v. Court Appeals, we held that "when a party adopts an improper remedy," as in this case, "his petition may be dismissed outright."[20] We then further elucidated that:Indeed, not infrequently, litigants and parties to a petition have invoked liberal construction of the Rules of Court to justify lapses in its observance. Hopefully, it is not simply a cover-up of their own neglect or sheer ignorance of procedure. While indeed this Court has on occasion set aside procedural irregularities in the interest of justice, it must be stressed that liberality of construction of the rules should not be a panacea for all procedural maladies. For this Court will not tolerate wanton disregard of the procedural rules under the guise of liberal construction.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when "there is no appeal[;] nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[13] That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal; in general, it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum.[14] | |||||