This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, this procedural infirmity would not render the termination of Astorga's employment illegal. The validity of termination can exist independently of the procedural infirmity of the dismissal.[41] In DAP Corporation v. CA,[42] we found the dismissal of the employees therein valid and for authorized cause even if the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code. This Court upheld the dismissal, but held the employer liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements. | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, with regard to the notice requirement, the Labor Arbiter found, and it was upheld by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, that the written notice of closure or cessation of Galaxie's business operations was posted on the company bulletin board one month prior to its effectivity. The mere posting on the company bulletin board does not, however, meet the requirement under Article 283 of "serving a written notice on the workers." The purpose of the written notice is to inform the employees of the specific date of termination or closure of business operations, and must be served upon them at least one month before the date of effectivity to give them sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements.[17] In order to meet the foregoing purpose, service of the written notice must be made individually upon each and every employee of the company. | |||||