This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Due to the strained relations of the parties, however, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative, when reinstatement is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[17] Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, the respondent is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate and distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively.[18] | |||||
|
2014-04-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation v. Ranchez,[20] the Court stated that a probationary employee shall be deemed a regular employee where no standards are made known to him at the time of his engagement "unless the job is self-descriptive, like maid, cook, driver, or messenger." | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Following a finding of constructive dismissal, the Court finds no cogent reason to modify the NLRC's monetary awards in Cosare's favor. In Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation v. Ranchez,[59] the Court reiterated that an illegally or constructively dismissed employee is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages.[60] The award of exemplary damages was also justified given the NLRC's finding that the respondents acted in bad faith and in a wanton, oppressive and malevolent manner when they dismissed Cosare. It is also by reason of such bad faith that Arevalo was correctly declared solidarily liable for the monetary awards. | |||||
|
2013-10-08 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The rule is that illegally dismissed employees are entitled to (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages.[96] | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement.[59] Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (a) a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.[60] | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners are not fixed-term employees but probationary employees. Respondents even admitted that Beltran was hired as probationary Recruitment Specialist. A probationary employee may be terminated for a just or authorized cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.[33] | |||||
|
2012-08-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.[22] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is probationary employment where the employee upon his engagement is made to undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement.[14] The probationary employment is intended to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationary employee while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become an efficient and productive employee. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, on the other hand, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. Thus, the word probationary, as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, not its length.[15] | |||||