Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARMANDO F. CHAN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
The petition traces its origins to a complaint filed by Jandeleon Juezan (respondent) against People's Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc) (petitioner) for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City.[2] On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September 2003. In the Inspection Report Form,[3] the Labor Inspector wrote under the heading "Findings/Recommendations" "non-diminution of benefits" and "Note: Respondent deny employer-employee relationship with the complainant- see Notice of Inspection results." In the Notice of Inspection Results[4] also bearing the date 23 September 2003, the Labor Inspector made the following notations:Management representative informed that complainant is a drama talent hired on a per drama " participation basis" hence no employer-employeeship [sic] existed between them. As proof of this, management presented photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statement, employments of specific undertaking (a contract between the talent director & the complainant), summary of billing of drama production etc. They (mgt.) has [sic] not control of the talent if he ventures into another contract w/ other broadcasting industries.
	GR No. 133756 2008-07-04	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ULPIANO TABASONDRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Various cases held that it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service.[19]
	GR NOS. 167335 & 167337 2007-07-10	DR. ULYSSES A. BRITO v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts; the Ombudsman is.[23] This rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.[24] Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts will be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[25] Petitioner presents an issue which touches on factual findings of the Ombudsman. Such issue is not reviewable by this Court via certiorari.[26]
	GR NO. 168617 2007-02-19	BERNADETTE L. ADASA v. CECILLE S. ABALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Besides, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in, and be subject of, a petition for review on certiorari since this Court is not a trier of facts. This being the case, this Court cannot review the evidence adduced by the parties before the prosecutor on the issue of the absence or presence of probable cause.[20]
	GR NO. 159210 2006-09-20	MOCARAL MACAWIAG v. JUDGE RASAD BALINDONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence, such as an error of judgment which is defined as one in which the court or quasi- judicial body may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction; an error of jurisdiction is one where the acts complained of were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. [46] Indeed, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[47] An examination of these issues would require the elevation of the records below, which cannot be done in the present case.