Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 211497 2015-03-18	HOCHENG PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ANTONIO M. FARRALES REYES, J.
Article 4 of the Labor Code mandates that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions thereof shall be resolved in favor of labor. Consistent with the State's avowed policy to afford protection to labor, as Article 3 of the Labor Code and Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution have enunciated, particularly in relation to the worker's security of tenure, the Court held that "[t]o be lawful, the cause for termination must be a serious and grave malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood. This is merely in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution and laws which lean over backwards in favor of the working class, and mandate that every doubt must be resolved in their favor."[27] Moreover, the penalty imposed on the erring employee ought to be proportionate to the offense, taking into account its nature and surrounding circumstances.
	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
Petitioner has raised a factual issue, i.e., whether Anita was illegally dismissed, which is not proper in a petition for review. We have consistently ruled that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency.[19] Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to review the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[20]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]