Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION-INDEPENDENT v. MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174184 2015-01-28	G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP v. RICARDO AMBOS LEONEN, J.
The decision to close one's business is a management prerogative that courts cannot interfere with.[35] Employers can "lawfully close shop at anytime,"[36] even for reasons of their own. "Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue in it."[37] In Mac Adams Metal Engineering Workers Union-Independent v. Mac Adams Metal Engineering,[38] this court said: It would indeed be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if [courts] were to unjustly interfere with the management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations just because [the] business operation or undertaking is not suffering from any loss or simply to provide the workers continued employment.[39]
	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The decision to close business is a management prerogative exclusive to the employer, the exercise of which no court or tribunal can meddle with, except only when the employer fails to prove compliance with the requirements of Art. 283, to wit: a) that the closure/cessation of business is bona fide, i.e., its purpose is to advance the interest of the employer and not to defeat or circumvent the rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement; b) that written notice was served on the employees and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date of closure or cessation of business; and c) in case of closure/cessation of business not due to financial losses, that the employees affected have been given separation pay equivalent to ½ month pay for every year of service or one month pay, whichever is higher.[55]
	GR No. 172363 2008-03-07	JUVY M. MANATAD v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In fact, even granting arguendo that respondent was not experiencing losses, it is still authorized by Article 283[26] of the Labor Code to cease its business operations. Explicit in the said provision is that closure or cessation of business operations is allowed even if the business is not undergoing economic losses. The owner, for any bona fide reason, can lawfully close shop anyone. Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue in it. It would indeed be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if we were to unjustly interfere with the management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations, just because said business operations are not suffering any loss or simply to provide the worker's continued employment.[27]
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, employers are also accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination and independence and reasonable return of capital. This mass of privileges comprises the so-called management prerogatives. Although they may be broad and unlimited in scope, the State has the right to determine whether an employer's privilege is exercised in a manner that complies with the legal requirements and does not offend the protected rights of labor. One of the rights accorded an employer is the right to close an establishment or undertaking.[25] Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue the same.[26]
	GR No. 146202 2004-07-14	RUFINA PATIS FACTORY v. JUAN ALUSITAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
As a general rule, the factual findings and conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are, on appeal, accorded great weight and even finality, unless petitioners are able to show that the NLRC arbitrarily disregarded the evidence before it or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[33]