Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAZ MARTIN JO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
While it is well-established that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it via a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law,[17] excepted therefrom is where, as in the present case, the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, then the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[18]
	GR No. 164804 2009-01-30	VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Further, they filed a complaint for constructive dismissal without praying for reinstatement. By analogy, we point to the doctrine that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is not applicable where the complainant does not pray for reinstatement and just asks for separation pay instead.[49] In this case, Sugue and Valderrama opted not to ask for reinstatement and even for separation pay, which clearly contradicts their stance that they did not abandon their work, for it appears they have no intention of ever returning to their positions in Triumph. In addition, we cannot subscribe to the CA's view that Triumph's issuance of show cause memos and notices of termination for abandonment were mere afterthought since they were preceded by Sugue's and Valderrama's letters informing the company that they considered themselves constructively dismissed. Logically, Triumph could not have issued show cause memos or termination notices for abandonment before Sugue and Valderrama unilaterally declared themselves constructively dismissed and stopped reporting for work without justifiable reason.
	GR No. 159808 2008-09-30	LEOPARD INTEGRATED SERVICES v. VIRGILIO MACALINAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While the well-established rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it via Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law,[6] the admitted exception is where the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiter, then the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[7]