Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO T. DOMONDON v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 202961 2015-02-04	EMER MILAN v. NLRC LEONEN, J.
Bañez was cited in Domondon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[76] One of the issues in Domondon is whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to decide an issue on the transfer of ownership of a vehicle assigned to the employee. It was argued that only regular courts have jurisdiction to decide the issue.[77]
	GR No. 151309 2008-10-15	BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
We have no reason to deviate from the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind us when supported by substantial evidence.[16] This is particularly true when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA are in absolute agreement.[17] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA uniformly agreed that the petitioners were not constructively dismissed and that the transfer orders did not amount to an unfair labor practice. But if only to disabuse the minds of the petitioners who have persistently pursued this case on the mistaken belief that the labor tribunals and the appellate court committed grievous errors, this Court will go over the issues raised in this petition.
	GR No. 165968 2008-04-14	PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS QUISUMBING, J.
The first issue involves a question of fact which the Court is not at liberty to review. Our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[14] Not being a trier of facts, the Court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented to the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals, which formed the basis of the questioned decision. Indeed, when their findings are in absolute agreement, the same are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]
	GR NO. 168096 2007-08-28	ALEX B. CARLOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' complete reliance on the alleged resignation letters to support their claim that private respondents voluntarily resigned is unavailing, as the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation.[16] Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to dissociate themselves from their employment. It must be done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment.[17]
	GR NO. 165594 2007-04-23	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, it should be noted that the ruling of Labor Arbiter Lustria sustaining the validity of petitioner's dismissal from work by reason of a valid redundancy program was affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. As heretofore discussed, their findings were predicated on the evidence on records and prevailing jurisprudence. It is well-established that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, when in absolute agreement, are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[54] We find no compelling reason to depart from this principle.