Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT - NUWHRAIN-APL v. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR FROILAN M. BACUNGAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 198783 2013-04-15	ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-NUWHRAIN-APL v. Bacungan,[7] we repeated the well-settled rule that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. We held that: "The question on the proper recourse to assail a decision of a voluntary arbitrator has already been settled in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, where the Court held that the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein, and consistent with the original purpose to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities.
	GR No. 164939 2011-06-06	SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT v. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-NUWHRAIN-APL v. Bacungan,[26]we repeated the well-settled rule that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. We held that: The question on the proper recourse to assail a decision of a voluntary arbitrator has already been settled in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, where the Court held that the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein, and consistent with the original purpose to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities.
	[GR No. 127934 2000-08-23	ACE HAULERS CORPORATION v. CA PARDO, J.
having been by her adduced evidence, preponderantly shown and established and out of which, she has shown herself to be completely deserving."[3] On September 13, 1993, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.[4]