Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PNOC DOCKYARD v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 204275 2015-12-09	LILIOSA C. LISONDRA v. MEGACRAFT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SPS. MELECIO AND ROSEMARIE OAMIL CARPIO, J.
Since "technical rules of procedure are not to be strictly interpreted and applied in a manner that would defeat substantial justice or be unduly detrimental to the work force,"[12] the Court may opt to relax these rules "in order to give full meaning to the constitutional mandate of affording full protection to labor."[13]
	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
The Union and its officers maintain that their September 4, 1998 strike was legal. They allege that the Company was guilty of union busting in promoting a substantial number of Union members and officers to positions outside the bargaining unit during the period of CBA negotiations. Allegedly, said Union members and officers maintained the same jobs and duties despite their promotion. They also capitalize on the CA's finding that the company was guilty of unfair labor practice in refusing to turn over the deducted contingency fees of the union members to the union. Citing Bacus v. Ople,[19] Panay Electric Company v. NLRC[20] and PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation v. NLRC,[21] they contend that this finding of unfair labor practice precludes the CA from ruling that the strike was illegal and that the Union was in bad faith in conducting the strike.
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
MHEA cannot lean on the doctrine in the case of PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission.[52] The Court, in the aforecited case, ruled that there was no valid service of the certification order which prohibited any strike or lockout since the said order was served on the guard on duty instead of the president of the union who was authorized to receive the same. As a result, the strike undertaken after the issuance of the said order was considered legal, hence cannot effectively terminate the employment of workers who joined the strike. In the present case, not only were the union officers apprised of the order, a copy of the same was served on the picket lines.