This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The NLRC ruled that the new screening guidelines for the school year 2000-20001 cannot be imposed on the petitioners and their employment contracts since the new guidelines were not imposed when the petitioners were first employed in 1998. According to the NLRC, the imposition of the new guidelines violates Section 6(d) of Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, which provides that "in all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement." Citing our ruling in Orient Express Placement Philippines v. NLRC,[18] the NLRC stressed that the rudiments of due process demand that employees should be informed beforehand of the conditions of their employment as well as the basis for their advancement. | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Per Certification dated March 8, 2001, the Postmaster of the Mandaluyong Central Post Office attested that said letter-memorandum was mailed on October 14, 1998.[15] This sufficiently negates the NLRC's finding, specially in the light of the rule that a certification from the postmaster would be the best evidence to prove that the notice has been validly sent.[16] The NLRC apparently misread the date indicated on the registry return receipt when it found that the letter-memorandum was mailed only on October 14, 1999. Evidently, such erroneous conclusion of the NLRC cannot be upheld by the Court.[17] | |||||