This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To be sure, an employer is free to regulate all aspects of employment.[39] It may make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of its employees which become part of the contract of employment provided they are made known to the employee.[40] In the event of a violation, an employee may be validly terminated from employment on the ground that an employer cannot rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employer's rules and application of the dignity and responsibility, has so plainly and completely been bared.[41] | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, we applied social justice and equity considerations in several cases to justify the award of financial assistance. In Piñero v. National Labor Relations Commission,[46] the Court declared the strike to be illegal for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. We, likewise, sustained the dismissal of the Union president for participating in said illegal strike. Considering, however, that his infraction is not so reprehensible and unscrupulous as to warrant complete disregard of his long years of service, and considering further that he has no previous derogatory records, we granted financial assistance to support him in the twilight of his life after long years of service.[47] The same compassion was also applied in Aparente, Sr. v. NLRC[48] where the employee was declared to have been validly terminated from service after having been found guilty of driving without a valid driver's license, which is a clear violation of the company's rules and regulations.[49] We, likewise, awarded financial assistance in Salavarria v. Letran College[50] to the legally dismissed teacher for violation of school policy because such infraction neither amounted to serious misconduct nor reflected that of a morally depraved person. | |||||
|
2010-09-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstances, the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioners was proper. It is not disputable that the grant of separation pay or some other financial assistance to an employee is based on equity, which has been defined as justice outside law, or as being ethical rather than jural and as belonging to the sphere of morals than of law.[30] This Court has granted separation pay as a measure of social justice even when an employee has been validly dismissed, as long as the dismissal has not been due to serious misconduct or reflective of personal integrity or morality.[31] | |||||
|
2004-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstances, social and compassionate justice dictate that petitioner Piñero be awarded financial assistance equivalent to one-half (1/2) month's pay for every year of service[28] computed from his date of employment up to October 28, 1994 when he was declared to have lost his employment status. Indeed, equities of this case should be accorded due weight because labor law determinations are not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.[29] | |||||