This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As a rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must raise only questions of law. However, the rule has exceptions such as when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA vary,[30] as in this case. | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Unfortunately, respondent Pingol has no one but himself to blame for his own predicament. By his own allegations in his complaint, he has barred his remedy and extinguished his right of action. Although the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it does not necessary follow that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its own rights. Out of Its concern for the less privileged in life, this Court, has more often than not inclined, to uphold the cause of the worker in his conflict with the employer.Such leaning, however, does not blind the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.[23] | |||||