This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to (1) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and, (2) full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer viable, separation pay is granted.[56] "[S]eparation pay is intended to provide the employee money during the period in which he will be looking for another employment."[57] Backwages, on the other hand, "are granted on grounds of equity for earnings lost by an employee due to his illegal dismissal."[58] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Anent backwages, Trajano is entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time her actual compensation was withheld on June 6, 1998 up to the finality of this decision (on account of her reinstatement having meanwhile become non-feasible and impractical).[55] This ruling is consistent with the legislative intent behind Republic Act No. 6715.[56] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. The rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency,[23] as in this case. There is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[24] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Although it is accepted that non-compliance with a union security clause is a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, jurisprudence dictates that such a dismissal must still be done in accordance with due process. This much we decreed in General Milling Corporation v. Casio,[25] to wit: The Court reiterated in Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos that: | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have previously held that "there are two aspects which characterize the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one is substantive -- whether the termination of employment was based on the provision of the Labor Code or in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence; the other is procedural -- the manner in which the dismissal was effected."[49] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We have however examined the records of this case and we find nothing to prove that petitioner's appointment was made pursuant to the above-quoted provision of respondent corporation's By-Laws. No copy of board resolution appointing petitioner as Manager or any other document showing that he was appointed to said position by action of the board was submitted by respondents. What we found instead were mere allegations of respondents in their various pleadings[24] that petitioner was appointed as Manager of respondent corporation and nothing more. "The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence."[25] | |||||