Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAPPARI K. SAWADJAAN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 180849 and 187143 2011-11-16	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DAN PADAO MENDOZA, J.
While it is an employer's basic right to freely select or discharge its employees, if only as a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest,[37] the law sets the valid grounds for termination as well as the proper procedure to be followed when terminating the services of an employee.[38]
	GR Nos. 180849 and 187143 2011-11-16	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DAN PADAO MENDOZA, J.
That there is no proof that Padao derived any benefit from the scheme is immaterial.[49] What is crucial is that his gross and habitual negligence caused great damage to his employer. Padao was aware that there was something irregular about the practices being implemented by his superiors, but he went along with, became part of, and participated in the scheme.
	GR No. 166356 2010-02-02	BENEDICTA M. SAMSON v. JUDGE GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG CARPIO, J.
The remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision.[21] The availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action for certiorari. The RTC Order subject of the petition was a final judgment which disposed of the case on the merits; hence, it was a subject for an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
	GR NO. 140150 2005-08-22	ASSOCIATION OF INTEGRATED SECURITY FORCE OF BISLIG -ALU v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of judgment on the merits is appeal.[9] This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facts or of law set out in the decision.[10] Records, however, disclose that petitioner received the Decision of the Court of Appeals on 27 July 1999, consequently, it had 15 days from said date of receipt of assailed judgment, or until 11 August 1999, within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, the reglementary period prescribed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to avail of said action. On 24 September 1999, close to two months after said receipt, petitioner filed its petition for certiorari. Evidently, petitioner has lost its remedy of appeal. At this point, we re-echo the oft repeated injunction that the particular special civil action of certiorari will not lie as a remedy for lost appeal.[11]
	GR No. 142001 2005-07-14	MERLINDA MADRIAGA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. This is even true if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision.[13] Therefore, when petitioners received the copy of the Resolution denying their Motion for Partial Reconsideration on 09 February 2000, they had fifteen (15) days or until 24 February 2000 to bring a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.