Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENIGNO M. VIGILLA v. PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 173254-55 & 173263 2016-01-13	DIAMOND FARMS v. SPFL-WORKERS SOLIDARITY JARDELEZA, J.
Clearly, DFI is the true employer of the respondent-workers; respondent-contractors are only agents of DFI. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, DFI shall be solidarily liable with the respondent-contractors for the rightful claims of the respondent-workers, to the same manner and extent, as if the latter are directly employed by DFI.[106]
	GR No. 188464 2015-07-29	ALBERTO J. RAZA v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. PERALTA, J.
While the Court remains invariably committed towards social justice and the protection of the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, it, nevertheless, recognizes that management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.[80] The aim is always to strike a balance between an avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of the legal rights of capital, on the other.[81] Indeed, the Court should be ever mindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[82]
	GR No. 169247 2014-06-02	MA. CONSOLACION M. NAHAS v. JUANITA L. OLARTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
It must be stressed, at the outset, that the resolution of the issue of whether Nahas acted for and in behalf of PETRA and/or Royal Dream in deploying Olarte abroad is a question of fact. "Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. Only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the CA."[22] Also "[s]ettled is the rule that the findings of the [Labor Arbiter], when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous."[23] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are one in their factual conclusion that Nahas, acting for and in behalf of PETRA and Royal Dream, interviewed Olarte, caused her to sign an employment contract, and facilitated and made possible her deployment abroad. The Court is, therefore, not duty-bound to inquire into the accuracy of this factual finding, particularly in this case where there is no showing that it was arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[24]