Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Retrenchment or lay-off is the termination of employment initiated by the employer, through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation.[37] It is an exercise of management prerogative which the Court upholds if compliant with certain substantive and procedural requirements,[38] namely: That retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and it is proven, by sufficient and convincing evidence such as the employer's financial statements audited by an independent and credible external auditor,[39] that such losses are substantial and not merely flimsy[40] and actual or reasonably imminent; [41] and that retrenchment is the only effective measure to prevent such imminent losses; [42]
	GR NO. 160213 2007-01-30	ZENAIDA ANGELES v. LORDY FERNANDEZ
It is well-settled that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. This rule applies equally to both the employee and the employer. In the interest of due process, the Labor Code directs labor officials to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities. However, delay in the submission of evidence should be clearly explained and should adequately prove the employer's allegation of the cause for termination.[13] (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, however, petitioner did not explain her belated submission of the affidavits of Anita Claveria,[14] Rolando C. Villanueva,[15] Bartolome Angeles[16] and Merline Jumawan.[17] In our view, her plea that the affidavits be admitted in the interest of truth, justice and fair play[18] lacks merit.
	GR NO. 153144 2006-10-16	VMC RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
First and foremost, the power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in Our Decision in the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission.[8] In said case, this Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.[9] Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals - pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari - is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.[11] As clearly stated in Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act 7902: The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. x x x. We now come to a determination of whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in arriving at its conclusion that there was no just cause to terminate the employment of private respondent Gustilo.
	GR NO. 147790 2006-06-27	GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Further, the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are non-litigious in nature.[40] As such, the proceedings before it are not bound by the technical niceties of the law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law,[41] as dictated by Article 221 of the Labor Code: ART. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. This rule applies equally to both the employee and the employer. In the interest of due process, the Labor Code directs labor officials to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities.[42] What is essential is that every litigant is given reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his right, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor,[43] which undoubtedly, was done in this case.
	GR NO. 162233 2006-03-10	RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court likewise holds that the NLRC did not err in admitting the receipts and other evidence attached to the Memorandum of Appeal of respondents. In Tanjuan v. Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Inc., [34] where this Court was confronted with the similar question, i.e., whether proof of business losses may be admitted on appeal before the NLRC, we declared that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases, which rule applies to both employer and employee. [35] Moreover, the fact that evidence was not presented before the Labor Arbiter will not justify its outright rejection, particularly since such evidence is absolutely necessary to resolve the issue of whether retrenched employees were validly terminated. [36] No less than the Labor Code directs labor officials to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities, [37] while Section 10, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that technical rules are not binding. [38] Indeed, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial justice. [39]
	GR NO. 147002 2005-04-15	PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Retrenchment has been defined as the termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted by management during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation.[12] It is a management prerogative resorted to by an employer to avoid or minimize business losses which is consistently recognized by the Court.[13]