This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Court recognizes the employer's power to terminate as an exercise of management prerogative. The petitioners, however, must be reminded that such right is not without limitations. In this connection, it is well to quote the ruling of the Court in the case of Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Gatbonton, [22] where it was written: As Article 281 clearly states, a probationary employee can be legally terminated either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. Nonetheless, the power of the employer to terminate an employee on probation is not without limitations. First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law; and third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer.[23] [Emphases supplied] | |||||
|
2009-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under Article 281[22] of the Labor Code, a probationary employee can be legally dismissed either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. Nonetheless, the power of the employer to terminate the services of an employee on probation is not without limitations. First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law. Third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer.[23] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that an employee who is illegally dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges as well as to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[13] However, in the event that reinstatement is no longer possible, the employee may be given separation pay instead.[14] | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer.[52] Private respondent miserably failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the petitioner's dismissal is illegal. | |||||