Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGAR AGUSTILO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NO. 156761 2006-10-17	LADY LYDIA CORNISTA-DOMINGO v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
Records reveal that when the Bank offered termination or separation pay to its remaining employees by way of a compromise agreement, a great majority of them accepted the amount as justifiable settlement of their claims.[21] Like these quitclaims and releases, there are voluntary agreements which represent reasonable settlements and are considered binding on the parties.[22] Petitioners, therefore, cannot renege on the compromise agreement they entered into after accepting benefits earlier simply because they may have felt that they committed a mistake in accepting their termination/separation pay. As no proof was presented to show that the compromise agreement in dispute was entered into through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, the same must be recognized as valid and binding upon all the 529 employees of the Bank. In fine, the petitioners and the other employees are estopped from questioning the validity of the Compromise Agreement.
	GR NO. 166421 2006-09-05	JOURNALISTS v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioners' argument that the CA is not a trier of facts is likewise erroneous. In the exercise of its power to review decisions by the NLRC, the CA can review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the labor tribunal.[44] Thus, the CA is not proscribed from "examining evidence anew to determine whether the factual findings of the NLRC are supported by the evidence presented and the conclusions derived therefrom accurately ascertained."[45]
	GR NO. 151818 2005-10-14	ORIENTAL PETROLEUM v. MARCIANO V. FUENTES TINGA, J.
Ordinarily in certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. However, in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, supra, it was held that the special civil action of certiorari is the mode of judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC either by this Court or the Court of Appeals, although the latter court is the appropriate forum for seeking the relief desired in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and that, in the exercise of its power, the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC.[21]
	GR NO. 152514 2005-08-12	LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA QUISUMBING, J.
Secondly, the general rule is that the findings of fact by the NLRC are deemed binding and conclusive. However, where, as in the instant case, the findings of fact by the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, a departure from the general rule is warranted. In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[10] we said that the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings of the NLRC in a special civil action for certiorari.[11]
	GR No. 152514 2005-07-12	LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA QUISUMBING, J.
Secondly, the general rule is that the findings of fact by the NLRC are deemed binding and conclusive. However, where, as in the instant case, the findings of fact by the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, a departure from the general rule is warranted. In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[10] we said that the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings of the NLRC in a special civil action for certiorari.[11]
	GR No. 142405 2004-09-30	ABAPO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Granting that the instant petition is in order, the same is still dismissible. In a similar case (involving the same issue the validity of the termination of SMC employees at the Mandaue Brewery), this Court, through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, now retired, held that the installation of labor-saving devices by SMC at the Mandaue plant was a proper ground for terminating employment.[6] The quitclaims and releases, signed by the employees concerned as reasonable settlements, are binding upon the parties.
	GR No. 144899 2004-02-05	ELIZABETH C. BASCON v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[12] we held that the special civil action of certiorari is the mode of judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC either by this Court or the Court of Appeals, but the latter court is the more appropriate forum in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and that, in the exercise of this power, the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC.[13]