This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the former worker has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him.[8] In Tan v. NLRC,[9] it was held that the first notice must state that dismissal is sought for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise, the notice cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the rules. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the employee has complied with the foregoing test. In the instant case, we find no reason to disturb the conclusion of the NLRC and the CA that there was no constructive dismissal. Their finding is supported by substantial evidence -- that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as justification for a conclusion.[32] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Case law recognizes the employer's right to transfer or assign employees from one area of operation to another,[36] or one office to another or in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges and not motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[37] This matter is a prerogative inherent in the employer's right to effectively control and manage the enterprise.[38] | |||||