This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| Worth stressing, we find sufficient reason to agree with the appellate court that petitioner failed in this case to prove that respondent abandoned her job. While respondent filed the complaint 20 months after her dismissal, such filing was well within the four-year prescriptive period allowed to institute an action for illegal dismissal.[27] This Court had previously considered a non-issue[28] the lapse of several months,[29] e.g. eight months,[30] nine months,[31] and two years and five months[32] before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. | |||||
|
2005-05-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Indeed, we find that none of the private respondents in this case had any intention to sever their working relationship. Just days after they were dismissed, private respondents Calimlim, Rico, Bautista, Abalos and Lopez filed complaints to protest their dismissals. The well-established rule is that an employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work.[36] | |||||