This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For the guidance of the CA, therefore, the Court has laid down three guideposts in determining the necessity of attaching the pleadings and portions of the records to the petition in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora,[29] which involved the dismissal of a petition for certiorari assailing an unfavorable decision in a labor dispute for failing to attach copies of all pleadings (like the complaint, answer, position paper) and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition, to wit: First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition. | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We reiterated Roquero in our succeeding ruling in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora.[14] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an Order[8] dated October 13, 2007, LA Calanza granted Enriquez and Sia's motion despite the opposition of petitioner. He opined that so long as there is no finality yet of the decision reversing a ruling of the lower tribunal (in this case, the LA) awarding reinstatement, the same should be enforced. Considering that the case was then pending before this Court, he sustained Enriquez and Sia's claim, applying the cases of Roquero and Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora.[9] The corresponding writ of execution was subsequently issued.[10] Upon service of the writ, Sheriff Paredes served on petitioner a notice of sale of a parcel of land owned by petitioner to satisfy its obligation.[11] | |||||
|
2010-03-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We rule in the negative. In Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora,[15] citing Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[16] we held that: x x x Hence, even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period. | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| First. While the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the company's petition initially for failure to attach material portions of the record, the court should have bended back a little when petitioner company subsequently attached those missing materials to its motion for reconsideration. As a general rule, petitions for certiorari that lack copies of essential pleadings and portions of the record may be dismissed but this rule has not been regarded as absolute. The omission may be cured.[24] | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed.[10] This rule, however, is not petrified. As the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record that must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the court to determine the necessity for copies of pleadings and other documents. [11] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On this score, the Court's attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning reinstatement pending appeal or, particularly, the option of payroll reinstatement. On the one hand is the jurisprudential trend as expounded in a line of cases including Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora,[10] while on the other is the recent case of Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission.[11] At the core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which reads:In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even so, petitioners should not be compelled to return the salaries and benefits already received by them on account of the order for reinstatement adjudged by the NLRC and affirmed by the Court. In Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora,[14] we held that if an employee was reinstated during the appeal period but such reinstatement was reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received from the employer. Justice and equity require that we apply the same doctrine to this case. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora,[42] the Court clarified that not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition; only those pleadings, parts of case records and documents which are material and pertinent, in that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case of abuse of discretion, are required to be attached to a petition for certiorari, and omission to attach such documents may be rectified by the subsequent submission of the documents required.[43] | |||||