This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Due process requires that, in reaching a decision, a tribunal must consider the entire evidence presented, regardless of the party who offered the same.[32] It simply cannot acknowledge that of one party and turn a blind eye to that of the other. It cannot appreciate one party's cause and brush the other aside. This rule becomes particularly significant in this case because the parties tendered contradicting versions of the incident. The victim is crying rape but the accused are saying it was a consensual sexual rendezvous. Thus, the CA's blatant disregard of material prosecution evidence and outward bias in favor of that of the defense constitutes grave abuse of discretion resulting in violation of petitioner's right to due process.[33] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| C. Velasco has become unfit to continue working at PNB. Taken together, his acts render him unfit to remain in the employ of the bank. That it is his first offense is of no moment because he holds a managerial position. Employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating managerial employees who, by virtue of their position, require full trust and confidence in the performance of their duties.[74] Managerial employees like Velasco are tasked to perform key and sensitive functions and are bound by more exacting work ethics.[75] Indeed, not even his eighteen (18) years of service could exonerate him. As this Court held in Equitable PCIBank v. Caguioa:[76] | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[39] Nevertheless, this Court may review the facts where: (1) the findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are inconsistent on material and substantial points; (2) the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals are capricious and arbitrary; and (3) the Court of Appeals' findings that are premised on a supposed absence of evidence are in fact contradicted by the evidence on record.[40] None of the foregoing exceptions to our limited power to review the facts is present in the case at bar. | |||||