This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-04-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, we reiterate that it is not legally objectionable, for being violative of due process, for the Labor Arbiter to resolve a case based solely on the position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[17] The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.[18] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Judicial Review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[25] 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.[26] This Court finds no basis for deviating from said doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are bereft of substantiation. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[27] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even if petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari, which would have been the proper remedy, the same would still fail. The Court finds that the labor arbiter did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when he issued the 25 August 1998 Order. For one, the holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right.[31] Section 4, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC[32] grants a labor arbiter wide latitude to determine, after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memoranda, whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing.[33] As this court has so often held, a formal type or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of controversy.[34] In one case, this Court held that a party has no vested right to a formal hearing simply and merely because the labor arbiter granted its motion and set the case for hearing.[35] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As for the requirement of due process, records[21] show that it has been fully satisfied in the instant case. The bank had complied with the two-notice requirement, i.e.: (a) a written notice of the cause for his dismissal to afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of counsel, if he so desires; and (b) a written notice of the decision to terminate him, stating clearly the reason therefor.[22] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, we must stress that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions.[33] Questions of fact are not entertained.[34] After all, this Court is not a trier of facts and, in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.[35] The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[36] | |||||