Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 195654 2015-11-25	REYNALDO INUTAN v. NAPAR CONTRACTING DEL CASTILLO, J.
We, likewise, subscribe to LA Espiritu's ruling that petitioners, as regular employees, are deemed to have been constructively and illegally dismissed by respondents. Being on floating status and off-detailed for more than six months, not having been reinstated and reassigned by respondents, petitioners are considered to have been constructively dismissed.[48] Settled is the rule that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and to his full backwages.[49]
	GR No. 184618 2014-11-19	PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NESTOR B. VILLAREAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
As pointed out by the labor tribunals, petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that there were no other posts available for Villareal after his recall from his last assignment. Worse, no sufficient reason was given for his relief and continued denial of a new assignment. And because of the dire financial straits brought about by these unjustified acts of petitioners, Villareal was forced to resign and execute documents in a manner as directed by petitioners in order to claim his security bond deposits. From these circumstances, petitioners' claim of voluntary resignation is untenable. What is clear instead is that Villareal was constructively dismissed. There is constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment. "Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[54] Moreover, Villareal's immediate filing of a Complaint for illegal dismissal to ask for reinstatement negates the fact of voluntary resignation.[55]
	GR No. 171282 2013-11-27	SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION v. EFREN BAUCA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The NLRC correctly noted that the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by respondents was premature since it was filed only eight days after petitioner announced that it will suspend its operations for six months. In Nippon Housing Phil., Inc. v. Leynes,[28] we said that a complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six months is generally considered as prematurely filed.