Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUNRISE MANNING AGENCY v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182341 2010-04-23	TRINIDAD GO v. VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, we find that the failure to serve a copy of the appellant's brief to two of the adverse parties was a mere oversight, constituting excusable neglect.[31] A litigant's failure to furnish his opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant dismissal of that appeal. In such an instance, all that is needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his opponent with a copy of his brief.[32] Anent the failure to append a copy of the assailed judgment, instead of dismissing the appeal on that basis, it is more in keeping with equity to simply require the appellants to immediately submit a copy of the Decision of the lower court rather than punish litigants for the reckless inattention of their lawyers.
	GR No. 182248 2008-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
The foregoing events unequivocally demonstrate ample opportunity for petitioners to verify and examine RCBC's summaries, accounting records, and reports. The pleadings reveal that RCBC granted petitioners' requests for production of documents and accounting records. More so, they had more than three (3) years to prepare for their defense after RCBC's submission of its brief of evidence. Finally, it must be emphasized that petitioners had the opportunity to appeal the Partial Award to the RTC, which they in fact did. Later, petitioners even moved for the reconsideration of the denial of their appeal. Having been able to appeal and move for a reconsideration of the assailed rulings, petitioners cannot claim a denial of due process.[65]
	GR NO. 160339 2008-03-14	OSCAR P. GARCIA and ALEX V. MORALES v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is oft repeated that in administrative proceedings, due process is served by the mere fact that each party is afforded an opportunity to air its side,[32] not necessarily through verbal argumentation, but also through pleadings in which the parties may explain their side of the controversy. [33] It is of record that petitioners were informed of the charges against them and were given the opportunity to present their defense, not just in the administrative investigation, but also in the proceedings before the LA and NLRC. The requirements of due process were more than adequately satisfied.
	GR No. 145587 2007-10-26	EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
The J.D. Magpayo ruling was reiterated in Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union-FFW v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] Pagdonsalan v. NLRC,[28] and in Sunrise Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC.[29]
	GR NO. 160213 2007-01-30	ZENAIDA ANGELES v. LORDY FERNANDEZ
We note that respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the first NLRC resolution where she had ventilated her side. This, in our view, was an occasion for her to be heard. In labor cases, such an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of amounts to due process.[12]