This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The liability arising from an illegal dismissal is unlike an order to pay the statutory minimum wage, because the workers' right to such wage is derived from law. The proposition that payment of back wages and separation pay should be covered by Article 109, which holds an indirect employer solidarily responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for "any violation of any provision of this Code," would have been tenable if there were proof - there was none in this case - that the principal/employer had conspired with the contractor in the acts giving rise to the illegal dismissal. [38] It is the established fact of conspiracy that will tie the principal or indirect employer to the illegal dismissal of the contractor or subcontractor's employees. In the present case, there is no allegation, much less proof presented, that the petitioner conspired with private respondents in the illegal dismissal of the latter's employees; hence, it cannot be held liable for the same. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It bears to emphasize that the appeal of a decision involving the monetary award in labor cases may be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond.[26] Nowhere in the Labor Code or in the NLRC Rules of Procedure can we find that the filing of a motion to reduce the appeal bond stays the finality of a decision. On the contrary, Section 6, Rule VI of the New NLRC Rules of Procedure explicitly states that "the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal." It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, it leaves no room for interpretation.[27] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In numerous cases, the Court has allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals, when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[30] Indeed, laws and rules should be interpreted and applied not in a vacuum or in isolated abstraction but in light of surrounding circumstances and attendant facts in order to afford justice to all.[31] Thus, where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight because labor determinations should not only be secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.[32] | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This requirement is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or even evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.[27] Such a requirement has been relaxed in several cases, however, following the rule that substantial justice is better served by allowing appeals on the merits.[28] The policy of labor laws is to liberally construe rules of procedure[29] and settle controversies according to their merits, not to dismiss them by reason of technicalities.[30] | |||||