Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 185058 2015-11-09	JOVITA S. MANALO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY LEONEN, J.
In Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission[36] this court explained that a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is allowed "only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases."[37] Consistent with this, the remedy of a writ of certiorari may be used only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Nevertheless, this requirement has been relaxed in cases where what is at stake is public welfare and the advancement of public policy.[38]
	GR No. 185058 2015-11-09	JOVITA S. MANALO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY LEONEN, J.
So too, parties who avail themselves of such a remedy are not at liberty to assail an adverse ruling on grounds of their own choosing. Rather, a petition for certiorari is "confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion."[39] Its sole office is "the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[40]
	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In labor cases, if the petitioner before this court can show grave abuse of discretion on the part of trie National Labor Relations Commission, the assailed Court of Appeals ruling (in the Rule 65 proceedings) will be reversed. "Labor officials commit grave abuse of discretion when their A factual findings are arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence."[82] If the petitioner can show that "the [labor] tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy,"[83] the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission may be subjected to review and ultimately rejected.[84]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
In Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission,[120] this court explained that a petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is "available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases"[121] and that its sole office "is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[122] A petition for certiorari does not include a review of findings of fact since the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded finality.[123] In cases where the aggrieved party assails the National Labor Relations Commission's findings, he or she must be able to show that the Commission "acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy."[124]
	GR No. 171482 2014-03-12	ASHMOR M. TESORO v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS ABAD, J.
As explained in Odango v. NLRC,[35] a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy which is allowed "only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases."[36] The remedy of a writ of certiorari may be availed of only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Nevertheless, this requirement has been relaxed in cases where what is at stake is public welfare and the advancement of public policy.[37]
	GR No. 157775 2007-10-19	LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. LEYECO IV EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr.[42] the Court held that "[t]he divisor assumes an important role in determining whether or not holiday pay is already included in the monthly paid employee's salary and in the computation of his daily rate". This ruling was applied in Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation v. Trajano,[43] Producers Bank of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission[44] and Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] among others.[46]
	GR No. 158460 2007-08-24	PFIZER v. EDWIN V. GALAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission[5], this Court held that with respect to labor cases, the appellate court's jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Differently put, the extraordinary writ of certiorari issues only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, its sole function being to keep the inferior court, board, tribunal, or officer within the bounds of its or his jurisdiction or to prevent it or him from committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[6]
	GR NO. 139940 2006-09-19	ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for petitioners' claim of substantial diminution of their salary on account of the divisor used by the University in its computation - 314 days, instead of 365 days, this Court finds nothing wrong therewith. Sundays being un-worked and considered unpaid rest days, while regular holidays as well as special holidays considered as paid days,[39] the factor used by the University merely complies with the basic rule in this jurisdiction of "no work, no pay." The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.[40]