Posts

Showing posts from March, 2023

Raymond A. Son, et al. v. University of Santo Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 211273 | 2018

  830 Phil. 243  (click for PDF copy, Source:   https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/ ) G.R. No. 211273. April 18, 2018 RAYMOND A. SON, RAYMOND S. ANTIOLA, AND WILFREDO E. POLLARCO,  PETITIONERS,  V.  UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, FR. ROLANDO DELA ROSA, DR. CLARITA CARILLO, DR. CYNTHIA LOZA, FR. EDGARDO ALAURIN, AND THE COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND DESIGN FACULTY COUNCIL,  RESPONDENTS. Ponente:   DEL CASTILLO, J.: Nature of petition:  This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside the September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128666 setting aside the August 10, 2011 Decision and October 30, 2012 Decision and January 22, 2013 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC Case No. 04-001131-11 and reinstating the March 26, 2012 Decision of the NLRC, as well as the CA's January 29, 2014 Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The September 27, 20

UMALI v. HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS, INC., G.R. No. 221356, | 2018

828 Phil. 320  (Full text Click here) G.R. No. 221356. March 14, 2018  MARIA CARMELA P. UMALI, PETITIONER,  VS.  HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT. Ponente: REYES, JR., J: Nature of Petition:   Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated May 29, 2015 and Resolution[2] dated November 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA­ G.R. SP No. 136194. Dispositive portion: The Court therefore finds it proper to reinstate the decision of the NLRC which ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and held her entitled to the twin relief of reinstatement and backwages. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 29, 2015 and Resolution dated November 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136194 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 15, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06101-13 is REINSTATED. Doctrines: It is an elementary rule in the law on la

ABUDA, et al v. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS, JULIANA NATIVIDAD, and MERLINDA NATIVIDAD. G.R. No. 200712 | 2018

835 Phil. 554 G.R. No. 200712. July 04, 2018  MARIO A. ABUDA, RODOLFO DEL REMEDIOS, EDWARDO DEL REMEDIOS, RODOLFO L. ZAMORA, DIONISIO ADLAWAN, ELPIDIO GARCIA, JR., ROGELIO ZAMORA, SR., JIMMY TORRES, POLICARPIO OBANEL, JOSE FERNANDO, JOHNNY BETACHE, JAYSON GARCIA, EDWIN ESPE, NEMENCIO CRUZ, LARRY ABANES, ROLANDO SALEN, JOSEPH TORRES, FRANCISCO LIM, ARNALDO GARCIA, WILFREDO BRONOLA, GLENN MORAN, JOSE GONZALES, ROGER MARTINEZ, JAIME CAPELLAN, RICHARD ORING, JEREMIAS CAPELLAN, ARNEL CAPELLAN, MELCHOR CAPELLAN, ROLLY PUGOY, JOEY GADONES, ARIES CATIANG, LEONEL LATUGA, CAPILLAN,  PETITIONERS,  V.  L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS, JULIANA NATIVIDAD, AND MERLINDA NATIVIDAD,  RESPONDENTS. Ponente: LEONEN, J.: Nature of Petitiom: This resolves the Petition for Review[1] filed by Mario A. Abuda, Rodolfo Del Remedios, Edwardo Del Remedios, Rodolfo L. Zamora, Dionisio Adlawan, Elpidio Garcia, Jr., Rogelio Zamora, Sr., Jimmy Torres, Policarpio Obanel, Jose Fernando, Johnny Betache, Jayson Garcia, Edwin E

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION; et. al. v. LIM, G.R. No. 214291 | 2018

823 Phil. 635 G.R. No. 214291. January 11, 2018 AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION;  AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.;  AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (A.P.C.), B.V.;  AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (PHILS.) B.V.; DAVID W. PLUMER, JR.;  GEORGE KONG; AND ALICIA HENDY,  PETITIONERS,  V.  JASON YU LIM,  RESPONDENT. Full text: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63869 Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.: Nature of petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari   seeks to set aside the April 23, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R SP No. 110142 setting aside the June 17, 2008 Decision and June 10, 2009 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 10-002807-07 and reinstating the July 27, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, as well as the CA's September 11, 2014 Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The April 23, 2014 Decision and Septe

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION v. CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILS. HOLDINGS, INC. G.R. No. 207252 | 2018

Labor Organization vs. Chevron Geothermal Phils.: A Dispute Over Salary Increases and Distortion Labor Organization Petitions Against Chevron Geothermal Phils. Over Alleged Salary Distortion A Collective Bargaining Agreement Leads to a Dispute Over Salary Increases 824 Phil. 426 G.R. No. 207252. January 24, 2018 PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION (PGIEU), Petitioner, -versus-  CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILS. HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.  Full text:   https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018januarydecisions.php?id=112 Ponente: REYES, JR., J: Nature of petition:  This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[2] dated November 5, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 115796, dismissing the Petition for Review entitled "Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union (PGIEU) vs. Chevron Geothermal Phils. Holdings, Inc.'' as well as the Resolution[3] dated May 17, 2

HORLADOR v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., et. al, G.R. No. 236576 | 2018 - Synopsis Only

Court Awards Attorney's Fees to Seaman in Permanent and Total Disability Benefits Case 839 Phil. 1167 SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 236576 | September 05, 2018 ARIEL P. HORLADOR , PETITIONER,  VS.  PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC .,  MARINE* SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD ., AND  CAPTAIN MARLON L. MALANAO , RESPONDENTS. Full text:   https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64650 Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Nature of petition: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision dated February 3, 2017 and the Resolution dated December 15, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136386, which affirmed the Decision dated February 28, 2014 and the Resolution dated May 22, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 04-06497-13 finding petitioner Ariel P. Horlador (petitioner) entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, with modification deleting the award of attorney's fees amounting to ten percent (10%

People vs. Japag and Liporada Case Digest (G.R. No. 223155) | 2018 - Synopsis Only

G.R. No. 223155, July 23, 2018 PEOPLE  OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  v.  DANILO JAPAG  AND ALVIN LIPORADA , Accused, DANILO JAPAG , Accused-Appellant. Full Text:   https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=726 Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.: Nature of Petition: Assailed in this appeal is the May 21, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01807 which affirmed with modification the October 29, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, finding appellant Danilo Japag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The May 21, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01807 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00; and in lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is awarded. Doctrines: The most important requisite of self-defense is unlaw

PEOPLE v. SIEGA, G.R. No. 213273 | 2018

834 Phil. 500 G.R. No. 213273. June 27, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,  V.  LEONARDO B. SIEGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Full Text:   https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64520   Ponente: CAGUIOA, J: Nature of petition: On appeal is the Amended Decision[1] dated November 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Nineteenth Division, Cebu City, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01003, modifying the Decision[2] dated July 27, 2012 of the CA Nineteenth Division in the same case. The July 27, 2012 Decision of the CA affirmed with modification the Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Sogod, Southern Leyte, in Criminal Case No. R-478; finding accused-appellant Leonardo B. Siega (Siega) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Amended Decision dated November 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01003 finding accused-appellant Leonardo B. Siega G

PEOPLE v. LOPEZ @ "DODONG,"G.R. No. 232247 | 2018

830 Phil. 771 114 OG No. 52, 8853 (December 24, 2018) G.R. No. 232247. April 23, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,  V.  RONILLO LOPEZ, JR. Y MANTALABA @ "DODONG" , ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Full Text:   https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64170 Ponente: PERALTA, J.: Nature of Petition: This is an appeal from the January 6, 2017 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07936, which affirmed the December 1, 2015 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 197, Las Piñas City (RTC), finding accused-appellant Ronillo Lopez, Jr. y Mantalaba (Ronillo), alias "Dodong" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide as defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. Dispositive portion:  WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07936 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ronillo Lopez, Jr. y

PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES v. MASAGCA, G.R. No. 191310 | 2018 - Synopsis Only

829 Phil. 381 G.R. No. 191310. April 11, 2018 PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES, PETITIONERS,  VS.  DESIREE T. MASAGCA , RESPONDENT. Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** J.: Full text: see https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64155 Doctrines: (1) Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. It is elementary that the scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. However, the present case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule, i.e., when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and/or the Court of Appeals are in conflict with one another. The conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals pave the way for this Court to review factual issues even if it is exercising its function of judicial review under Rule 45. (2) It is true that the Court had declared in previous