Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 156934 2007-03-16	ALPHA C. JACULBE CORONA, J.
By its express language, the Labor Code permits employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years.[13]
	GR NO. 167462 2005-10-25	MANLY EXPRESS INC. v. ROMUALDO PAYONG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The burden of proving the validity of the dismissal rests on the employer. As such, the employer must prove that the requisites for a valid dismissal due to a disease have been complied with. In the absence of the required certification by a competent public health authority, this Court has ruled against the validity of the employee's dismissal.[9]
	GR No. 116384 2000-02-07	VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC PURISIMA, J.
Under Section 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, for a disease to be a valid ground for the dismissal of the employee, the continued employment of such employee is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or the health of his co-employees, and there must be a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months, even with proper medical treatment. Since the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal of the employee rests on the employer, the latter should likewise bear the burden of showing that the requisites for a valid dismissal due to a disease have been complied with. In the absence of the required certification by a competent public health authority, this Court has ruled against the validity of the employee's dismissal.[6]