Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NOS. 178085 - 178086 2015-09-14	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF LABOR JARDELEZA, J.
In a separate comment filed by the Respondent Employees, they claim that they have the right to maintain their union membership not for the purpose of collective bargaining, but for legal representation in dealing with the employer; thus, there is no legal justification for their dismissal.[16] They further assert that the matter of back wages and other monetary benefits is already barred by res judicata since the Secretary's award merely complied with our ruling in G.R. No. 151379[17] affirming the payroll reinstatement of the Respondent Employees.[18]
	GR No. 163942 2008-11-11	NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to the Secretary's Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement for the individual respondents herein, an amendment to the previous Orders issued by her office, the same is usually not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states that all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The phrase "under the same terms and conditions" makes it clear that the norm is actual reinstatement. This is consistent with the idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry can be detrimental to the national interest.[13]