This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With regard to petitioners' failure to establish the third and fourth requisites for a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the Court stresses the importance of having fair and reasonable criteria, such as but not limited to (a) less preferred status, e.g., temporary employee; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.[34] The presence of such criteria used by the employer shows good faith on its part and is evidence that the implementation of redundancy was painstakingly done by the employer in order to properly justify the termination from the service of its employees.[35] Conversely, the absence of criteria in the selection of an employee to be dismissed and the erroneous implementation of the criterion selected, both render invalid the redundancy because both have the ultimate effect of illegally dismissing an employee.[36] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, an employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without producing adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.[38] Among the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant,[39] such as but not limited to: preferred status, efficiency, and seniority.[40] | |||||
|
2011-02-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation."[32] International agreements may be in the form of (1) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification; or (2) executive agreements that are similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties.[33] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court recognizes that a host of relevant factors comes into play in determining cost-efficient saving measures and in choosing who among the employees should be retained or separated. It is well settled that the characterization of an employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and, therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. However, the wisdom or soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review provided, of course, that violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is not shown.[19] In several instances, the Court has held that it is important for a company to have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and (c) seniority.[20] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners object to the acceptance and consideration by the NLRC of the evidence presented by HI for the first time on appeal. This is not a novel procedural issue, however, and our jurisprudence is already replete with cases[29] allowing the NLRC to admit evidence, not presented before the Labor Arbiter, and submitted to the NLRC for the first time on appeal. Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.[30] | |||||
|
2007-12-28 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is however not enough for a company to merely declare that positions have become redundant. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees.[15] In Panlilio v. NLRC,[16] we said that the following evidence may be proffered to substantiate redundancy: "the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring." In another case, it was held that the company sufficiently established the fact of redundancy through "affidavits executed by the officers of the respondent PLDT, explaining the reasons and necessities for the implementation of the redundancy program."[17] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We find no merit in petitioner's contention that the Labor Arbiter abused his discretion when he admitted respondents' position paper which had been belatedly filed. It bears stressing that the Labor Arbiter is mandated by law to use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.[25] Indeed, as stressed by the appellate court, respondents' failure to submit a position paper on time is not a ground for striking out the paper from the records, much less for dismissing a complaint.[26] Likewise, there is simply no truth to petitioner's assertion that it was denied due process when the Labor Arbiter admitted respondents' position paper without requiring it to file a comment before admitting said position paper. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Obviously, there is nothing in the records that would suggest that petitioner had absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[27] Petitioner had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the Labor Arbiter's admission of respondents' position paper, and even file a Reply thereto. In fact, petitioner filed its position paper on April 2, 2001. It must be stressed that Article 280 of the Labor Code was encoded in our statute books to hinder the circumvention by unscrupulous employers of the employees' right to security of tenure by indiscriminately and absolutely ruling out all written and oral agreements inharmonious with the concept of regular employment defined therein.[28] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court emphasized in the earlier case of Panlilio v. National Labor Relations Commission[26] that it is imperative for the employer to have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to (a) preferred status; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.[27] | |||||