This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that an employee who was 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.[45] Since reinstatement is no longer feasible as Lopez' former position no longer exists,[46] his backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal up to the finality of the decision.[47] Backwages include the whole amount of salaries plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases to which he would have been normally entitled had he not been illegally dismissed,[48] such as the legally mandated Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA) and thirteenth (13th) month pay, and the meal and transportation allowances prayed for by Lopez.[49] | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have held that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, these are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[18] The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function that the Supreme Court normally undertakes.[19] Only when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law will such findings of fact be set aside.[20] | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The Appellate Court did not err in concluding that there is no valid cause in terminating respondent's employment. The well-established rule is that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where they are in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC, as in this case, are accorded not only great respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court.[7] | |||||