Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

J.A.T. GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191281 2012-12-05	BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Indeed, there was no evidence that respondents were dismissed from employment. In fact, petitioners expressed willingness to accept them back to work. There being no termination of employment by the employer, the award of backwages cannot be sustained. It is well settled that backwages may be granted only when there is a finding of illegal dismissal.[20]In cases where there is no evidence of dismissal, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages.[21]
	GR No. 194795 2012-06-13	EVER ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG EVER ELECTRICAL 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]
	GR No. 157673 2007-10-15	ROLANDO ANGELES v. POLYTEX DESIGN 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]
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA 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]
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have already repeatedly held that this Court is not a trier of facts. Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court limits the office of a Petition for Review to questions of law and leaves the factual issues as found by the quasi-judicial bodies, as long as they are supported by evidence.[28] We never fail to stress as well that when the rulings of the labor tribunal and the appellate court are in conflict, we are constrained to analyze and weigh the evidence again.[29]