This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For retrenchment, the three (3) basic requirements are: (a) proof that the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses or impending losses; (b) service of written notices to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[14] In addition, jurisprudence has set the standards for losses which may justify retrenchment, thus:(1) the losses incurred are substantial and not de minimis; (2) the losses are actual or reasonably imminent; (3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are proven by sufficient and convincing evidence.[15] | |||||
|
2013-04-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to reinstatement "shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation x x x."[24] Verily, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to other established employment privileges, and to his full backwages.[25] The boarding house privilege being an established perk accorded to petitioner ought to have been granted him if a real and authentic reinstatement to his former position as general manager is to be posited. | |||||