This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the appellate court's decisions,[19] and the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.[20] Be that as it may, when, as here, the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[21] | |||||
|
2008-03-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.[22] The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual matter that will not be delved into by this Court, since only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review.[23] The Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, such as: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. [24] None of these exceptions, however, has been convincingly shown by petitioners to apply in the present case. | |||||
|
2008-03-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| First, respondents' work as weavers, grinders, sanders and finishers is directly related to MGTI's principal business of rattan furniture manufacturing. Where the employees are tasked to undertake activities usually desirable or necessary in the usual business of the employer, the contractor is considered as a "labor-only" contractor and such employees are considered as regular employees of the employer.[27] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena,[28] we said that the elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of wages, (c) the power of dismissal, and (d) the employer's power to control. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[29] | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court cannot sustain the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of respondent. Moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without cause or due process. The termination must be attended with bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted therefrom. Similarly, exemplary damages are recoverable only when the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. To merit the award of these damages, additional facts must be pleaded and proved.[38] In the present case, respondent did not proffer substantial evidence that would overcome the legal presumption of good faith on the part of petitioner. The award of moral and exemplary damages should therefore be deleted. | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Inarguably, the resolution of the issue raised by petitioner requires us to inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence presented, including the credibility of the witnesses, a course of action which this Court will not do, consistent with our repeated holding that this Court is not a trier of facts. This principle applies with greater force in labor cases. So it is that in Manila Water Company, Inc. vs. Pena, et al.,[7] we wrote:As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Hence, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court. | |||||