Scribd
Upload
454 views1 page

Reyes V Zamora, G.R. No. L-46732, May 5, 1979

The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the President has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of private respondents in Reyes v Zamora. The private respondents relied on grounds in their appeal to the Office of the President that were consistent with the rules allowing appeals if there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion, if the decision was made purely on questions of law, or if national security or social and economic stability is threatened. Specifically, their claim that the order was contrary to law and jurisprudence raised a question of law, falling under the category of appeals allowed on that basis.

Uploaded by

Lyle Bucol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
454 views1 page

Reyes V Zamora, G.R. No. L-46732, May 5, 1979

The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the President has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of private respondents in Reyes v Zamora. The private respondents relied on grounds in their appeal to the Office of the President that were consistent with the rules allowing appeals if there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion, if the decision was made purely on questions of law, or if national security or social and economic stability is threatened. Specifically, their claim that the order was contrary to law and jurisprudence raised a question of law, falling under the category of appeals allowed on that basis.

Uploaded by

Lyle Bucol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Reyes v Zamora, G.R. No.

L-46732, May 5, 1979

Facts: Special civil action filed for (1) certiorari to annul and set aside the decision dated November 12,
1976 of the Office of the President, which granted respondent Marsman and Co., leave to terminate
petitioner's employment, and reversed the decision of the Secretary of Labor ordering the
reinstatement of petitioner with back wages, from the date of his preventive suspension, and (2)
mandamus to compel the Office of the President to limit its review of the decision of the Secretary of
Labor solely on the basis of the evidence presented and established during the hearing conducted at the
mediation-fact-finding stage.

Issue: Whether or not the Office of the President has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of private
respondents, under Rule XXI, Sec. 13 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code of the
Philippines.

Ruling: YES. We perceive no difficulty in sustaining respondents' claim on the first issue. They relied in
their appeal to the Office of the President on the following.

a) The Order is contrary to law and jurisprudence on the matter; and

xxx xxx xxx

b) The Order contains serious errors in the findings of facts and would cause grave or
irreparable damage and injury to the appellants; "

whereas, the grounds provided under Rule XIII, Section 13 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Labor Code, are:

a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion;

b) If made purely on questions of law and

c) If there is a showing that the national security or social and economic stability is
threatened.

Petitioner's allegation that the grounds relied upon are not those provided for is more apparent than
real. For the truth is, as the Solicitor General and the private respondents point out, the allegation that
"(T)he order is contrary to law and jurisprudence on the matter" raises a question of law and hence can
be subsumed under paragraph (b), aforequoted. Indeed when one alleges that an order is contrary to
law and jurisprudence, plain common sense dictates that the order is being attacked on question of law.

You might also like