This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "We have held that management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor."[40] Such "cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker."[41] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that he was denied his right to due process because the investigation conducted by Citytrust was done ex-parte and he was not given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him. Petitioner's concept of the opportunity to be heard is the chance to ventilate one's side in a formal hearing where he can have a face-to-face confrontation with his accusers. It is well settled that the basic requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases is for the employer to inform the employee of the specific charges against him and to hear his side and defenses.[33] This does not, however, mean a full adversarial proceeding.[34] The parties may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memorandum or oral argument.[35] In all of these instances, the employer plays an active role by providing the employee with the opportunity to present his side and answer the charges in substantial compliance with due process.[36] In the present case, petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process because he was able to respond to the letter of Citytrust dated August 6, 1993.[37] Moreover, he admitted in his cross-examination before the labor arbiter that he was able to attend the investigation of the ad hoc committee formed by Citytrust where he was shown the check vouchers issued by MECO, informed of the charges against him and was given further opportunity to explain his side.[38] Hence, the fact alone that he was not able to confront the witnesses against him during the investigation conducted by Citytrust does not mean that he was denied his right to due process. What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice and hearing.[39] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Homeowners Savings and Loan Association, Inc. vs. NLRC,[4] we ruled:"Actual adversarial proceeding becomes necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to unclear witnesses. This is a procedural right which the employee must, however, ask for. It is not an inherent right." It bears stressing that petitioner requested that an investigation be conducted but respondents vehemently refused. Clearly, petitioner was deprived of her right to due process. | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled on this issue before. In the case of Homeowners Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC,[33] we held: The acceptability of the proposition that transfer made by an employer for an illicit or underhanded purpose - i.e., to defeat an employee's right to self- organization, to rid himself of an undesirable worker, or to penalize an employee for union activities - cannot be upheld is self-evident and cannot be gainsaid. The difficulty lies in the situation where no such illicit, improper or underhanded purpose can be ascribed to the employer, the objection to the transfer being grounded solely upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the transfer. What then? | |||||