This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although it cannot be determined with certainty whether respondent worked for the entire period from November 16 to November 30, 2005, the consistent rule is that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and that by the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter[24] in line with the policy mandated by Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. For petitioners' failure to satisfy their burden of proof, respondent is presumed to have worked during the period in question and is, accordingly, entitled to his salary. Therefore, the withholding of respondent's salary by petitioners is contrary to Article 116 of the Labor Code and, thus, unlawful. | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With respect to petitioner's argument that respondents should be deemed "estopped" from claiming additional benefits in view of their "unqualified receipt" of their retirement benefits and other benefits, we find the same lacking in merit. There was nothing in the receipts/vouchers signed by respondents to indicate that they acknowledged full receipt of all amounts due them or that they are waiving their right to claim any deficiency in their benefits. Indeed, in this jurisdiction, even written, express quitclaims, releases and waivers in labor cases may be invalidated under certain circumstances. As a rule, quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker's legal rights.[23] In this case, respondents' consistent acts of demanding the improved benefits before and after their actual receipt of their partial benefits belie any intention to waive their legal right to demand the deficiency in their benefits. Thus, we cannot accept petitioner's view that there is estoppel or even implied waiver on the part of respondents. | |||||
|
2009-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Paramio, et al.[94] 12 months 10 months 2 months Unexpired portion Flourish Maritime v. Almanzor [95] 2 years 26 days 23 months and | |||||
|
2007-03-01 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[14] It exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[15] The factual milieu in this case is different. Thus, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals both ruled that the treatment accorded petitioner does not constitute constructive dismissal. | |||||
|
2006-08-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in the case of Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. v. Paramio,[46] citing the case of Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Service, Ltd.,[47] this Court ruled that an overseas Filipino worker who is illegally terminated should be entitled to his salary equivalent to the unexpired portion of his employment contract if such contract is less than one year. | |||||
|
2005-05-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| First, it is a rule that quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker's legal rights.[30] | |||||