This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Most notably, the LA observed that the employers "did not deny the claims of complainant [Oco] that she was simply told not to work."[22] As in Solas v. Power & Telephone Supply Phils. Inc.,[23] this silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the truth of the employee's narration. Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules Court, provides: An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cite the case of Solas v. Power & Telephone Supply Phils., Inc.[27] to support their contention that the mere withholding of an employee's salary does not by itself constitute constructive dismissal. Petitioners are mistaken in anchoring their argument on said case, where the withholding of the salary was deemed lawful. In the above-cited case, the employee's salary was withheld for a valid reason - it was applied as partial payment of a debt due to the employer, for withholding taxes on his income and for his absence without leave. The partial payment of a debt due to the employer and the withholding of taxes on income were valid deductions under Article 113 paragraph (c) of the Labor Code. The deduction from an employee's salary for a due and demandable debt to an employer was likewise sanctioned under Article 1706 of the Civil Code. As to the withholding for income tax purposes, it was prescribed by the National Internal Revenue Code. Moreover, the employee therein was indeed absent without leave. | |||||