Lawyerly

GR No. 171118

2012-09-10

PERALTA, J.

To begin with, it is significant to note that the LA, the NLRC and the CA were unanimous in their findings that respondents were dismissed without just cause and due process. They were also in agreement that unfair labor practice was committed against respondents. We reiterate the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the LA, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[23] The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court's alleged errors of law. It is not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[24] In any event, we found no compelling reason to disturb the unanimous findings and conclusions of the CA, the NLRC and the LA with respect to the finding of illegal dismissal.

GR No. 168317

2011-11-21

DUP SOUND PHILS. v. CA

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, considering the hard times in which we are in, it is incongruous for private respondent to simply give up his work without any apparent reason at all. No employee would recklessly abandon his job knowing fully well the acute unemployment problem and the difficulty of looking for a means of livelihood nowadays. Certainly, no man in his right mind would do such thing.[15]

GR No. 174141

2009-06-26

PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA

BRION, J.

In evaluating a charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be lightly presumed from equivocal acts.[21] To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship. The employer bears the burden of showing a deliberate and unjustified refusal by the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[22]

GR Nos. 146121-22

2008-04-16

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and GERIBERN ABELLA v. NLRC

TINGA, J,

At the outset, it should be stressed that whether respondent had falsified his medical consultation card and whether he incurred unauthorized absences are questions of fact which the Court of Appeals, the NLRC, and the labor arbiter had already resolved. We see no reason to disturb the same. After all, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[23] Nevertheless, while the Court subscribes to the factual findings of the lower tribunals, it finds that these tribunals misapplied the appropriate law and jurisprudence on the issue of respondent's dismissal due to his unauthorized absences. But first the falsification issue.

GR NO. 157975

2007-06-26

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELICISIMO CARILLA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. More so, in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force. [13] The LA and the NLRC have ruled on the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon us so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]

GR NO. 169600

2007-06-26

MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[36] These remedies give life to the worker's constitutional right to security of tenure.[37]

GR NO. 148893

2006-07-12

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NLRC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] A heavy burden rests upon petitioner to convince the Court that it should take exception from such a settled rule.[16]

GR NO. 160854

2006-03-03

BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO

QUISUMBING, J

The consistent rule is that the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause, failing in which would make the termination illegal, as in this case.[24]

GR NO. 160391

2005-08-09

DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The offers made by the petitioners could not have the effect of validating an otherwise arbitrary dismissal.[39]

GR NO. 156893

2005-06-21

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL

PANGANIBAN, J.

But, the second question relating to the sufficiency of evidence is a question of fact.[9] As a general rule, such questions are not subject to a review by this Court. The factual findings of the CA are accorded not only respect but even finality, as long as these are supported by substantial evidence.[10] The evidence on record may be scrutinized by this Court only under recognized exceptions, such as when the CA findings are devoid of support or are in conflict with those of labor officials, or when the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[11]

GR NO. 157634

2005-05-16

MAYON HOTEL v. ROLANDO ADANA

PUNO, J.

While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play.[66] And in termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.[67] Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.[68]

GR NO. 160368

2005-03-31

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BANK v. PEDRO L. CABRERA

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

With respondent's dismissal from the service being illegal, the reinstatement and full backwages decreed by the Court of Appeals are in order. However, if reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, a separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.[23]

GR No. 159390

2004-06-10

GALLERA DE GUISON HERMANOS v. MA. ASUNCION C. CRUZ

TINGA, J.

We stated then, "time and again the much-repeated but not so well-heeded rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence."[11] We reiterate the statement in this case.

	GR No. 171118 2012-09-10	PARK HOTEL v. MANOLO SORIANO PERALTA, J.
To begin with, it is significant to note that the LA, the NLRC and the CA were unanimous in their findings that respondents were dismissed without just cause and due process. They were also in agreement that unfair labor practice was committed against respondents. We reiterate the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the LA, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[23] The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court's alleged errors of law. It is not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[24] In any event, we found no compelling reason to disturb the unanimous findings and conclusions of the CA, the NLRC and the LA with respect to the finding of illegal dismissal.
	GR No. 168317 2011-11-21	DUP SOUND PHILS. v. CA PERALTA, J.
Moreover, considering the hard times in which we are in, it is incongruous for private respondent to simply give up his work without any apparent reason at all. No employee would recklessly abandon his job knowing fully well the acute unemployment problem and the difficulty of looking for a means of livelihood nowadays. Certainly, no man in his right mind would do such thing.[15]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
In evaluating a charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be lightly presumed from equivocal acts.[21] To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship. The employer bears the burden of showing a deliberate and unjustified refusal by the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[22]
	GR Nos. 146121-22 2008-04-16	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and GERIBERN ABELLA v. NLRC TINGA, J,
At the outset, it should be stressed that whether respondent had falsified his medical consultation card and whether he incurred unauthorized absences are questions of fact which the Court of Appeals, the NLRC, and the labor arbiter had already resolved. We see no reason to disturb the same. After all, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[23] Nevertheless, while the Court subscribes to the factual findings of the lower tribunals, it finds that these tribunals misapplied the appropriate law and jurisprudence on the issue of respondent's dismissal due to his unauthorized absences. But first the falsification issue.
	GR NO. 157975 2007-06-26	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELICISIMO CARILLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. More so, in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force. [13] The LA and the NLRC have ruled on the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon us so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]
	GR NO. 169600 2007-06-26	MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[36] These remedies give life to the worker's constitutional right to security of tenure.[37]
	GR NO. 148893 2006-07-12	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] A heavy burden rests upon petitioner to convince the Court that it should take exception from such a settled rule.[16]
	GR NO. 160854 2006-03-03	BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO QUISUMBING, J
The consistent rule is that the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause, failing in which would make the termination illegal, as in this case.[24]
	GR NO. 160391 2005-08-09	DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The offers made by the petitioners could not have the effect of validating an otherwise arbitrary dismissal.[39]
	GR NO. 156893 2005-06-21	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL PANGANIBAN, J.
But, the second question relating to the sufficiency of evidence is a question of fact.[9] As a general rule, such questions are not subject to a review by this Court. The factual findings of the CA are accorded not only respect but even finality, as long as these are supported by substantial evidence.[10] The evidence on record may be scrutinized by this Court only under recognized exceptions, such as when the CA findings are devoid of support or are in conflict with those of labor officials, or when the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[11]
	GR NO. 157634 2005-05-16	MAYON HOTEL v. ROLANDO ADANA PUNO, J.
While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play.[66] And in termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.[67] Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.[68]
	GR NO. 160368 2005-03-31	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BANK v. PEDRO L. CABRERA DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
With respondent's dismissal from the service being illegal, the reinstatement and full backwages decreed by the Court of Appeals are in order. However, if reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, a separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.[23]
	GR No. 159390 2004-06-10	GALLERA DE GUISON HERMANOS v. MA. ASUNCION C. CRUZ TINGA, J.
We stated then, "time and again the much-repeated but not so well-heeded rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence."[11] We reiterate the statement in this case.

HANTEX TRADING CO. v. CA