Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FLORENCE O. CABANSAG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163657 2012-04-18	INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. ROEL P. LOGARTA PERALTA, J.
In the case at bar, despite the fact that respondent was employed by Petrocon as an OFW in Saudi Arabia, still both he and his employer are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code when applicable. The basic policy in this jurisdiction is that all Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations.[25] In the case of Royal Crown Internationale v. NLRC,[26] this Court has made the policy pronouncement, thus: x x x. Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. x x x[27]
	GR No. 152894 2007-08-17	CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[28] Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that Palad was terminated for valid reasons. In fact, the NLRC found that petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of the performance evaluation which petitioner claims to have conducted on Palad, where Palad received a performance rating of only 27.75%. Petitioner merely relies on the performance evaluation to prove Palad's inefficiency. It was likewise not shown that petitioner ever apprised Palad of the performance standards set by the company. When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.[29]
	GR NO. 150429 2006-08-29	ROBERTO G. FAMANILA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is fundamental that the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law. It does not extend to questions of fact. More so in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force.[14] The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] We reviewed the records of the case and we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the labor arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 148893 2006-07-12	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law. It does not extend to questions of fact. More so in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force.[13]