This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The LA found that Casas was not dismissed from work; she instead abandoned her post. Citing Chong Guan Trading Inc. v. NLRC[9] and Security & Credit Investigation, Inc. v. NLRC,[10] the LA held that no illegal dismissal takes place when the employee has not been notified of his dismissal; in the absence of any positive and overt act of dismissal, the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.[11] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The NLRC found no sufficient evidence to show that Javilgas was dismissed or prevented from reporting for work; that Javilgas could not categorically state when he was dismissed: in his complaint, he claimed to have been dismissed on February 27, 2002, but in subsequent pleadings he alleged he was dismissed in mid-April, 2002. Relying on the principle enunciated in Chong Guan Trading v. National Labor Relations Commission,[6] it ruled that where Javilgas was never notified of his dismissal nor was he prevented from returning to work, there could be no illegal dismissal. The NLRC also found the telephone conversation between Javilgas and Rodolfo Padilla where the latter told the former to stop reporting to work self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value, especially where Javilgas himself declares that he was told by Rodolfo not to report to work without giving any reason therefor. In fine, the NLRC held that Javilgas voluntarily resigned, and not illegally dismissed. | |||||
|
2006-11-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| When proper, no serious impediment bars the allowance of tardy appeals under the Rules of Court, in recognition of this Court's inherent power to suspend adjective rules. It is a different matter, however, when the period to appeal is provided by statute, as in labor cases. For obvious reasons, this Court cannot ordinarily suspend the statute's operation. x x x Nevertheless, if only to be able to dispense substantial justice, strict observance of the period to appeal may not be exacted. Thus, in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines v. Lariosa,[17] an appeal in a labor dispute was given due course despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days from notice of the decision, due to the fact that the Notice of Decision received by Lariosa's lawyer advised the parties that the appeal could be taken to the NLRC within ten (10) "working" days not calendar days from notice of the decision. For the same reason was the appeal in Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC[18] allowed. While in City Fair Corporation v. NLRC,[19] we ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it entertained an appeal filed one (1) day late considering that the "facts and circumstances of the case warrant liberality considering the amount and the issue involved." | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under these circumstances, it is but fair to state that each party must bear his or her own loss, thus placing them on equal footing.[28] | |||||