This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Indubitably, bare allegations do not amount to substantial evidence. Considering that the respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove their asserted cause for the petitioner's dismissal, the labor tribunals should not have upheld their allegations hook, line and sinker. The labor tribunals' respective findings, which were arrived at sans any substantial evidence, amounts to a grave abuse of discretion, which the CA should have rectified. "Security of tenure is a right which may not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and nebulous basis."[52] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| For purposes of the Labor Code, redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[16] That no other person was holding the same position prior to the termination of one's services, does not show that his position had not become redundant. Indeed, in any well-organized business enterprise, it would be surprising to find duplication of work and two (2) or more people doing the work of one person.[17] Just like installation of labor-saving devices, the ground of redundancy does not require the exhibition of proof of losses or imminent losses. In fact, of all the statutory grounds provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code, it is only retrenchment which requires proof of losses or possible losses as justification for termination of employment.[18] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is merit in petitioner's claim that the CA's finding "that it (petitioner) failed to provide proof that it truly had an extensive reengineering study on account of business losses arising out of massive oil deregulation" is misplaced considering that Article 283 of the Labor Code does not require that the employer should be suffering financial losses before he can terminate the services of the employee on the ground of redundancy.[28] Nevertheless, the CA finding on this matter does not detract from the fact that petitioner failed to show proof of fair and reasonable criteria for the implementation of a valid redundancy program. Thus, whether it is retrenchment or redundancy, or any of the other authorized causes, no employee may be dismissed without observance of the fundamentals of fair play.[29] | |||||