This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As the transfer proves unbearable to respondents as to foreclose any choice on their part except to forego continued employment, same amounts to constructive dismissal for which reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their compensation was withheld up to the time of their actual reinstatement, should be granted.[37] The CA, therefore, did not err in awarding the reliefs prayed for by the respondents as they were, without a doubt, constructively dismissed. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 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 or a diminution in pay"[30] and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,[31] constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[32] In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity[33] and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.[34] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We similarly ruled in Texon Manufacturing v. Millena,[29] in Sime Darby Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission[30] and in Westmont Pharmaceuticals v. Samaniego. [31] In Texon, we specifically said: The Order of the Labor Arbiter denying petitioners' motion to dismiss is interlocutory. It is well-settled that a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an interlocutory order and hence, cannot be appealed, until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered. [Emphasis supplied.][32] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have ruled that in constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer of an employee is for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity.[16] The employer must demonstrate that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee and that the transfer does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and other benefits. If the employer fails to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer is tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal. | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[17] Unarguably, this rule, as it is stated, strips down administrative due process to its most fundamental nature and sufficiently justifies freeing administrative proceedings from the rigidity of procedural requirements. In particular, however, due process in administrative proceedings has also been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[18] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Firstly, petitioners cannot maintain that they were denied due process. Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[22] Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due process in labor cases is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims.[23] Thus, in Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court held:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.[25] | |||||
|
2007-02-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in the service or a lateral movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or salary;[4] (b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for legitimate business purposes;[5] (c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without sufficient cause;[6] (d) the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.[7] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusion of the CA that, based on the facts of the case, respondents were constructively dismissed. It must be stressed that where an employee complains of constructive dismissal, it is the employer who bears the burden of proving that the transfer of an employee is for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity, and such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. An employer's failure to discharge such burden would make him liable for unlawful contructive dismissal.[11] | |||||