This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, are not precluded from receiving evidence submitted on appeal as technical rules are not binding in cases submitted before them.[43] However, any delay in the submission of evidence should be adequately explained and should adequately prove the allegations sought to be proven.[44] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Second, by nature, commissions are given to employees only if the employer receives income.[45] Employees, as a reward, receive a percentage of the earnings of the employer, which they, through their efforts, helped produce.[46] Commissions are also given in the form of incentives or encouragement so that employees will be inspired to put a little more industry into their tasks. Commissions can also be considered as direct remunerations for services rendered.[47] All these different concepts of commissions are incongruent with the claim that an employee can continue to receive them indefinitely after reaching his mandatory retirement age. | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Better Buildings, Inc. v. NLRC,[79] the Court ruled that the while the termination therein was for just and valid cause, the manner of termination was done in complete disregard of the necessary procedural safeguards.[80] The Court found nominal damages as the proper form of award, as it was purposed to vindicate the right to procedural due process violated by the employer.[81] A similar holding was maintained in Iran v. NLRC[82] and Malaya Shipping v. NLRC.[83] The doctrine has express statutory basis, duly recognizes the existence of the right to notice, and vindicates the violation of such right. It is sound, logical, and should be adopted as a general rule. | |||||