This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, an illegally dismissed employee should be awarded moral and exemplary damages as their dismissal was tainted with unfair labor practice.[34] Depending on the factual milieu, jurisprudence has awarded varying amounts as moral and exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud; or constitutes an act oppressive to labor; or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy; or if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.[35] | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Assuming, arguendo, that the employment contracts between the petitioner school and the respondent spouses were renewed, this Court finds that there was a valid and just cause for their dismissal. The Labor Code commands that before an employer may legally dismiss an employee from the service, the requirement of substantial and procedural due process must be complied with.[46] Under the requirement of substantial due process, the grounds for termination of employment must be based on just[47] or authorized causes.[48] | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As aptly found by the CSC, the unsatisfactory conduct must necessarily relate to conduct exhibited during the probationary period and should not refer to conduct prior to entering the civil service. The reason for this is simple given the nature and consequences of probationary employment. Thus, we explained in the recent case of Woodridge School v. Pe Benito:[33] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, we rule on the propriety of the monetary awards. Petitioner, as employer, is entitled to decide whether to extend respondent a permanent status by renewing her contract beyond the three-year period. Given the acrimony between the parties which must have been generated by this controversy, it can be said unequivocally that petitioner had opted not to extend respondent's employment beyond this period. Therefore, the award of backwages as a consequence of the finding of illegal dismissal in favor of respondent should be confined to the three-year probationary period. Computing her monthly salary of P15,000.00 for the next two school years (P15,000.00 x 10 months x 2), respondent already having received her full salaries for the year 2002-2003, she is entitled to a total amount of P300,000.00.[48] Moreover, respondent is also entitled to receive her 13th month pay correspondent to the said two school years, computed as yearly salary, divided by 12 months in a year, multiplied by 2, corresponding to the school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, or P150,000.00 / 12 months x 2 = P25,000.00. Thus, the NLRC was correct in awarding respondent the amount of P325,000.00 as backwages, inclusive of 13th month pay for the school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, and the amount of P3,750.00 as pro-rated 13th month pay. | |||||