Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

1. SASAN vs.

NLRC FACTS : Respondent Equitable PCI Bank entered into a contract for services with HI (a domestic corporation engaged in providing janitorial and messengerial services). The petitioners were among those employed. On July 2001, the petitioners filed with the NLRC complaints for illegal dismissal with claims for separation pay. The petitioners claimed that they had become regular employees of EPCI Bank with respect to the activities for which they were employed. During the presentation of evidences, the respondent submitted before the NLRC, several documents which it did not present before the Labor Arbiter, which became the basis for the NLRC to promulgate its decision, modifying the ruling of the labor arbiter. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the decision of the NLRC which was later elevated to the Supreme Court. ISSUE : The acceptance and consideration of the NLRC of the evidence presented for the first time on appeal. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases and that submission of additional evidence in the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure. The Rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively without regard to the technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice. The NLRC may consider evidence submitted by the parties for the first time on appeal and this does not prejudice the other party for it could submit counter evidence 2. VETTE INDUSTRIAL vs. CHENG FACTS : Cheng filed an action for specific performance and damages against Vette Industrial Sales Co., for breaching their obligation in the MOA. Under the MOA, the company acknowledged owing Cheng a sum of money as compensation for the shares he transferred, insurance proceeds and signing bonus. In their answer with counterclaim, Vette Industrial claimed that the shares have already been paid; that the MOA is unenforceable and void. After failing to settle during mediation, the case was referred back to the court. On the day of the Pre-tria, Cheng and his counsel Atty. Ferrer failed to appear resulting to the dismissal of the case. Cheng filed a motion for reconsideration. Vette claims that the motion was procedurally defective because it was not served three

days before the date of the hearing and no proof of service was given to the court, in violation of Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15. The trial court granted the motion and Vette Industrial elevated the case to the CA. The ruling of the trial court was vacated and Chengs complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Both parties assailed the ruling before the SC. ISSUE: Is the rule of notice required under Sections 4, and 5 Rule 15 of the ROC violated? 3. HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO vs. RUDEX FACTS : 4. SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. RTC 5. FERNANDO CRUZ vs. GINGOYON 6. SUICO vs. CA