Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORKIS TRADING CO. v. MELVIN GNILO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197353 2013-04-01	ALEXANDER B. BAÑARES v. TABACO WOMEN’S TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE VELASCO JR., J.
Reinstatement, as a labor law concept, means the admission of an employee back to work prevailing prior to his dismissal;[18] restoration to a state or position from which one had been removed or separated, which presupposes that there shall be no demotion in rank and/or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges; if the position previously occupied no longer exists, the restoration shall be to a substantially equivalent position in terms of salary, benefits and other privileges.[19] Management's prerogative to transfer an employee from one office or station to another within the business establishment, however, generally remains unaffected by a reinstatement order, as long as there is no resulting demotion or diminution of salary and other benefits and/or the action is not motivated by consideration less than fair or effected as a punishment or to get back at the reinstated employee.[20]
	GR No. 173882 2012-02-15	JULIE’S BAKESHOP v. HENRY ARNAIZ EDGAR NAPAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[D]emotion involves a situation in which an employee is relegated to a subordinate or less important position constituting a reduction to a lower grade or rank, with a corresponding decrease in duties and responsibilities, and usually accompanied by a decrease in salary."[32] When there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee; or when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, the transfer of an employee may constitute constructive dismissal.[33]
	GR No. 186209 2011-09-21	UNITED LABORATORIES v. JAIME DOMINGO SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE CARMENCITA PUNZALAN DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
In one section under the same title of Article XIII, the Constitution mandates that "all workers shall be entitled to security of tenure" and commands at the same time in the same way, that the State shall recognize the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth. Such that, in this jurisdiction, we recognize that management has a wide latitude to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including the freedom to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[23] Managerial prerogatives, on the other hand, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[24]
	GR No. 177467 2011-03-09	PFIZER v. GERALDINE VELASCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court is cognizant of the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[26] Likewise, the management prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. There must be no showing that it is unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee.[27]
	GR No. 185814 2010-10-13	SHS PERFORATED MATERIALS v. MANUEL F. DIAZ MENDOZA, J.
As a rule, the factual findings of the courts below are conclusive in a petition for review on certiorari where only errors of law should be reviewed. The case, however, is an exception because the factual findings of the CA and the LA are contradictory to that of the NLRC. Thus, a review of the records is necessary to resolve the factual issues involved and render substantial justice to the parties.[11]
	GR No. 176506 2009-11-25	MERCK SHARP v. JONAR P. ROBLES NACHURA, J.
Once more, we agree with MSD's statement of the general rule that the work reassignment of an employee is a management prerogative. Indeed, even the Constitution recognizes "the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth."[12] Yet, we are quick to point out that the invocation of management prerogative carries the corresponding burden of proving such contention. We reiterated as much in the recent case of Norkis Trading Co., Inc. v. Gnilo:[13]