This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although business reverses or losses are recognized by law as an authorized cause, it is still essential that the alleged losses in the business operations be proven convincingly; otherwise, this ground for termination of employment would be susceptible to abuse by conniving employers, who might be merely feigning business losses or reverses in their business ventures in order to ease out employees.[16] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While business reverses or losses are recognized by law as an authorized cause for terminating employment, it is an essential requirement that alleged losses in business operations must be proven convincingly; otherwise, said ground for termination would be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers, who might be merely feigning business losses or reverses in their business ventures in order to ease out employees.[7] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It would indeed be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if a court were to unjustly interfere in management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations just because said business operation or undertaking is not suffering from any loss.[28] The determination to cease operations is a prerogative of management which the State does not usually interfere with, as no business or undertaking must be required to continue operating simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment, and such act would be tantamount to a taking of property without due process of law.[29] As long as the company's exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of circumventing the rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement, such exercise will be upheld.[30] | |||||