Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. LEANDRO LEGASPI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193990 2015-10-14	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. JULIO C. CANJA PERALTA, J.
In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi,[16] the Court has the occasion to rule that a petition for certiorari is not rendered moot by the mere fact that there was already an executed NLRC decision. For clarification, we quote: Section 14, Rule VII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that decisions, resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, and entry of judgment shall be made upon the expiration of the said period. In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, however, it was ruled that judicial review of decisions of the NLRC may be sought via a petition for certiorari before the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and under Section 4 thereof, petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the petition. Hence, in cases where a petition for certiorari is filed after the expiration of the 10-day period tinder the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure hut within the 60-day period under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA can grant the petition and modify, nullify and reverse a decision or resolution of the NLRC.[17]
	GR No. 214961 2015-09-16	BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK v. GUILLERMO C. SAGAYSAY MENDOZA, J.
Although the Court has, more often than not, been inclined towards the plight of the workers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers, such inclination has not blinded it 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.[43]
	GR No. 211302 2015-08-12	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. CESAR C. PELAGIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Fortunately, the Court had the opportunity to reconcile the ostensibly opposing pronouncements in the Leonis Navigation and Career Philippines cases in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi,[52] (Philippine Transmarine) in this wise:In Career Philippines, believing that the execution of the LA Decision was imminent after its petition for injunctive relief was denied, the employer filed before the LA a pleading embodying a conditional satisfaction of judgment before the CA and, accordingly, paid the employee the monetary award in the LA decision. In the said pleading, the employer stated that the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award was without prejudice to its pending appeal before the CA and that it was being made only to prevent the imminent execution.
	GR No. 209383 2015-03-11	SEACREST MARITIME MANAGEMENT v. MAURICIO G. PICAR MENDOZA, J.
Adhering to the pronouncement in Leonis Navigation, the Court, in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi (Transmarine),[19] held that the satisfaction of the monetary award by the employer did not render the petition for certiorari moot before the CA. In Transmarine, pursuant to a writ of execution issued, the employer ship-owner/manning agency and the complaining seafarer agreed to a settlement of the judgment award. It was, however, stipulated that the settlement shall be without prejudice to the pending petition for certiorari filed by the employer before the CA. It was further agreed that, in the event that the petition would be granted and the judgment award would be eventually reversed, whether in full or partially, the seafarer shall return all amounts in excess of what he would be entitled to and the employer shall be allowed to file the necessary motion for the return or restitution of the amount unjustly paid. The parties' covenants, as well as the acknowledgment by the seafarer of receipt in full of the judgment award, were embodied in a receipt of the judgment award with undertaking. The CA, upon being informed of the settlement, dismissed the petition for certiorari for being moot and academic. In support of the dismissal, the CA also relied on Career Philippines. In reversing and setting aside the order of dismissal issued by the CA, the Court in Transmarine wrote: In Career Philippines, believing that the execution of the LA Decision was imminent after its petition for injunctive relief was denied, the employer filed before the LA a pleading embodying a conditional satisfaction of judgment before the CA and, accordingly, paid the employee the monetary award in the LA decision. In the said pleading, the employer stated that the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award was without prejudice to its pending appeal before the CA and that it was being made only to prevent the imminent execution.