Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 160260 2012-10-24	WESTMONT BANK v. MYRNA DELA ROSA-RAMOS MENDOZA, J.
Considering that banks can only act through their officers and employees, the fiduciary obligation laid down for these institutions necessarily extends to their employees. Thus, banks must ensure that their employees observe the same high level of integrity and performance for it is only through this that banks may meet and comply with their own fiduciary duty.[25] It has been repeatedly held that "a bank's liability as an obligor is not merely vicarious, but primary"[26] since they are expected to observe an equally high degree of diligence, not only in the selection, but also in the supervision of its employees. Thus, even if it is their employees who are negligent, the bank's responsibility to its client remains paramount making its liability to the same to be a direct one.
	GR No. 192473 2010-10-11	S.I.P. FOOD HOUSE v. RESTITUTO BATOLINA BRION, J.
We first resolve the alleged impropriety of the petition.[13] While it is the general rule that the Court may not review factual findings of the CA, we deem it proper to depart from the rule and examine the facts of the case in view of the conflicting factual findings of the labor arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other.[14] We, therefore, hold the respondents' position on this point unmeritorious.
	GR No. 187120 2010-02-15	PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS v. NLRC BRION, J.
While as a rule,[26] a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, we deem it appropriate to examine the facts in this review, given the conflicting factual findings between the Labor Arbiter, on the one hand and, the NLRC and the CA, on the other.[27] The Labor Arbiter sustained Rivera's dismissal with the finding that he committed acts of dishonesty or fraud against his employer. The NLRC and the CA held that no substantial evidence existed to support Rivera's dismissal.
	GR No. 157861 2010-02-02	BIBIANA FARMS v. ARTURO LADO BRION, J.
At the outset, we clarify that we are generally precluded in a Rule 45 petition from reviewing factual findings of the CA; we are not triers of facts. However, the conflicting factual findings of the Arbiter and the NLRC, on one hand, and the CA, on the other, compel us to depart from this general rule, and to wade into the consideration of the presented evidence. [23]
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The exception, rather than the general rule, applies in the present case. When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, such as the NLRC, this Court must make its own factual findings.[28]
	GR NO. 162850 2005-12-16	MAXI SECURITY v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be brought to this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts, and as such is not tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again.[11] This case is not an exception.