This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-11-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC mandate that a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision must be filed within 10 calendar days from receipt of said decision, otherwise, the decision shall become final and executory.[11] A motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision must be filed before the remedy of a petition for certiorari may be availed of, to enable the commission to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the courts.[12] Failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision is a procedural defect that generally warrants a dismissal of the petition for certiorari.[13] However, in Surima v. NLRC,[14] we held that despite procedural lapses, fundamental consideration of substantial justice may warrant this Court to decide a case on the merits rather than dismiss it on a technicality. In so doing, we exercise our prerogative in labor cases that no undue sympathy is to be accorded to any claim of procedural misstep, the idea being that our power must be exercised according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the controversy.[15] In the instant case, we are persuaded that the rigid rules of procedure must give way to the demands of substantial justice, and that the case must be decided on the merits. Moreover, the petition filed with the Court of Appeals sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari which is a prerogative writ, not demandable as a matter of right, but issued in the exercise of judicial discretion.[16] Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no error when it admitted the petition for certiorari filed by respondent, and had jurisdiction over said petition. | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The general rule, no doubt, is that findings of fact of an administrative agency, which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor, are accorded great weight on appeal. The rule is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions, however. Thus, when the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence or their judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, the appellate court may make an independent evaluation of the facts of the case, which procedure the Court of Appeals adopted in this case.[25] Moreover, where the party's contention appears to be clearly tenable, or where the broader interest of justice and public policy so requires, the court may, in a certiorari proceeding, correct the error committed. The Court of Appeals, in view of its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases elevated to it through a petition for certiorari such as in this case, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings if it considers the same to be necessary to arrive at a just decision.[26] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for reversing the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC that she was constructively dismissed relying on the principle of finality and conclusiveness of the decisions of the labor tribunals. However, it is well-settled that for want of substantial basis, in fact or in law, factual findings of an administrative agency, such as the NLRC, cannot be given the stamp of finality and conclusiveness normally accorded to it, as even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared "final" by law are not exempt from the judicial review when so warranted.[16] | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On the first issue, it is settled that the Court of Appeals, in view of its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases which are elevated to it through a petition for certiorari, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings if it considers the same to be necessary to arrive at a just decision;[21] and when factual findings of the NLRC are contrary to those of the Labor Arbiter, as in the present case.[22] | |||||