Case Digest (G.R. No. 219916)
Facts:
Arlene Palgan (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge the February 26, 2015 Decision and the July 15, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07820, which found that she was not illegally terminated by Holy Name University (HNU, Respondent). Arlene started working at HNU's College of Nursing as a Casual or Assistant Clinical Instructor for the school year 1992-1993 while awaiting the results of her Nursing Board Examination. Over the years, she worked full-time in various capacities and received letters of appointment for her positions. Despite being a regular employee as she contended, she argued that HNU unjustly did not renew her employment contract which was due to expire on March 31, 2007. Arlene alleged that she was never informed of the evaluation standards for her probation. The respondents maintained that Arlene had been probationary, and her contract merely expired, with no obligation on their part to renew it, as
Case Digest (G.R. No. 219916)
Facts:
Petitioner Arlene Palgan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Holy Name University after receiving a notice dated February 28, 2007 that her contract, which expired on March 31, 2007, would not be renewed; she alleged she had acquired regular status after more than six consecutive regular semesters. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint; the NLRC initially affirmed but on reconsideration declared illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement with backwages of PhP 1,572,031.62, and the Court of Appeals later reversed the NLRC; Palgan sought review before the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals showed bias in favor of Respondents and decided the case in a manner likely not in accord with law or applicable Supreme Court decisions?
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact and conclusions were grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjecture?
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion?
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact are premised on supposed evidence but contradicted by the evidence on record?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)