This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| However, not only in one case has this Court relaxed this requirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate resolution of cases on the merits. In Quiambao v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court allowed the relaxation of the requirement when there is substantial compliance with the rule. Likewise, in Ong v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. The Court held that "while the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond."[20] | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing rule is not absolute and admits of exceptions. Thus, in the following instances, the Court is compelled to resolve both factual issues along with the legal ones: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| While it may not be proper to revisit such past pronouncements in this case, we nonetheless find that petitioner's theory of project employment fails the principal test of demonstrating that the alleged project employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee is engaged for the project.[20] | |||||