This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The issuance of the temporary restraining order ... did not nullify the rights of private respondents to their reinstatement and to collect their wages during the period of the effectivity of the order but merely suspended the implementation thereof pending the determination of the validity of the NLRC resolutions subject of the petition. Naturally, a finding of this Court that private respondents were not entitled to reinstatement would mean that they had no right to collect any back wages. On the other hand, where the Court affirmed the decision of the NLRC and recognized the right of private respondents to reinstatement,... private respondents are entitled to the wages accruing during the effectivity of the temporary restraining order.[35] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) While Zamboanga was decided prior to St. Martin Funeral and, therefore, the NLRC decisions were at the time passed upon by this Court to the exclusion of the appellate court, it is still applicable. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, we held in Zamboanga City Water District v. Buat[21] that:There is no dispute that petitioner, a water district with an original charter, is a government-owned and controlled corporation. The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by provisions of the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Jurisdiction over the strike and the dismissal of private respondents is therefore lodged not with the NLRC but with the Civil Service Commission. (Citations omitted) | |||||