Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEECO II v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209418 2015-12-07	W.M. MANUFACTURING v. RICHARD R. DALAG VELASCO JR., J.
In the case at bar, while petitioner submitted as evidence memos that it supposedly attempted to serve Dalag, there was no proof that these were, indeed, received by the latter.[84] By petitioner's own allegation, Dalag refused to receive the same. Under such circumstance, the more prudent recourse would have been to serve the memos through registered mail instead of directly proceeding with the investigation. As held in NEECO II v. NLRC:[85]
	GR No. 190724 2014-03-12	DIAMOND TAXI v. FELIPE LLAMAS BRION, J.
"Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment."[34] It is a form of neglect of duty that constitutes just cause for the employer to dismiss the employee.[35]
	GR No. 196573 2013-10-16	VICTORINO OPINALDO v. NARCISA RAVINA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[48] To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and, (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.[49] None of these elements is present in the case at bar. As succinctly stated by the NLRC: From respondents' own admission in their position paper, it is clear that they prevented [petitioner's] continued employment with them unless the latter presents a medical certificate that he is physically and mentally fit for work x x x.
	GR No. 191459 2011-01-17	BERNADETH LONDONIO v. BIO RESEARCH CARPIO MORALES, J.
Absent any showing that the appellate court ignored, misconstrued and misapplied facts and circumstances of substance, its affirmance of the NLRC decision holding that petitioners were illegally dismissed stands. It is settled that where the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all concur in their factual findings and it does not appear that they acted with grave abuse of discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the same, this Court is bound by the said findings.[14] The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, being the most equipped and having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, their findings of fact are accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[15]
	GR NO. 169091 2006-02-16	DATU EDUARDO AMPO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Litigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases.[12] Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence.[13] The circumstances of this case plainly show that petitioner only has himself to blame. Neither can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[14] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[15] Where a party, such as petitioner, was afforded this opportunity to participate but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[16]