Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACEBEDO OPTICAL v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184397 2015-09-09	ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED CHILDREN PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
It is elementary that this Court is not a trier of facts, and only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest. As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[36]
	GR No. 208908 2015-03-11	COFFEE BEAN v. ROLLY P. ARENAS BRION, J.
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of, or failure to exercise even a slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[18] There is habitual neglect if based on the circumstances, there is a repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time.[19]
	GR No. 198534 2013-07-03	JENNY F. PECKSON v. ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION REYES, J.
In its Decision[19] dated June 8, 2011, the CA found no basis to deviate from the oft-repeated tenet that the findings of fact and conclusions of the NLRC when supported by substantial evidence are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even finality, and are thus deemed binding.[20]
	GR No. 179952 2009-12-04	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The argument fails. To reiterate, petitioner's liability is based not on contract or quasi-contract but on quasi-delict since there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.[40] Article 2231 of the Civil Code, which provides that in quasi-delict, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence, thus applies. For "gross negligence" implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care,[41] evincing a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[42]
	GR No. 162195 2008-04-08	BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES v. REYNALDO CHUA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As the Court held in Acebedo Optical v . National Labor Relations Commission,[15]