This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As pointed out by the labor tribunals, petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that there were no other posts available for Villareal after his recall from his last assignment. Worse, no sufficient reason was given for his relief and continued denial of a new assignment. And because of the dire financial straits brought about by these unjustified acts of petitioners, Villareal was forced to resign and execute documents in a manner as directed by petitioners in order to claim his security bond deposits. From these circumstances, petitioners' claim of voluntary resignation is untenable. What is clear instead is that Villareal was constructively dismissed. There is constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment. "Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[54] Moreover, Villareal's immediate filing of a Complaint for illegal dismissal to ask for reinstatement negates the fact of voluntary resignation.[55] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We start by observing that the degree of proof required in labor cases is not as stringent as in other types of cases.[36] This liberal approach affords to the employee every opportunity to level the playing field in which her employer is pitted against her. Here, on the one hand, were Tabingo's memorandum and affidavit indicating that MMPI's revenues in 1999 totaled P36,216,624.07, and, on the other, the audit report showing MMPI's gross revenues amounting to only P31,947,677.00 in the same year. That the audit report was rendered by the auditing firm of Punongbayan & Araullo did not make it weightier than Tabingo's memorandum and affidavit, for only substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion[37] - was required in labor adjudication. Moreover, whenever the evidence presented by the employer and that by the employee are in equipoise, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the latter.[38] For purposes of determining whether or not the petitioners' gross revenue reached the minimum target of P35 million, therefore, Tabingo's memorandum and affidavit sufficed to positively establish that it did, particularly considering that Tabingo's memorandum was made in the course of the performance of her official tasks as a traffic clerk of MMPI. In her affidavit, too, Tabingo asserted that her issuance of the memorandum was pursuant to MMPI's year-end procedures, an assertion that the petitioners did not refute. In any event, Tabingo's categorical declaration in her affidavit that "[because] of that achievement, as part of the Sales and Traffic Team of MMPI, in addition to my other bonuses that year, I received P8,500.00 in gift certificates as my share in the Group Incentive for the Sales and Traffic Team for gross advertising revenue of P35 to P38 million xxx,"[39] aside from the petitioners not refuting it, was corroborated by the 1999 Advertising Target sent by the respondent to Yap on December 2, 1999, in which the respondent reported a gross revenue of P36,216,624.07 as of December 1, 1999.[40] | |||||
|
2013-04-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Reinstatement is no longer viable where, among other things, the relations between the employer and employee have been so severely strained, that it is not in the best interest of the parties, nor is it advisable or practical to order reinstatement.[32] Under the doctrine of strained relations, payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.[33] Indeed, separation pay is made an alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, such as: (1) when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the passage of a long period of time or because of the realities of the situation; (2) reinstatement is inimical to the employer's interest; (3) reinstatement is no longer feasible; (4) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved; (5) the employer is prejudiced by the workers' continued employment; (6) facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or (7) strained relations between the employer and the employee.[34] | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As a general rule, only questions of law may be allowed in a petition for review on certiorari.[26] Considering, however, that the CA reversed its earlier decision and made a complete turnaround from its previous ruling, and consequently set aside both the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC for allegedly having been issued without jurisdiction, it is necessary for the Court to reexamine the records and resolve the conflicting rulings. | |||||