This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither are we inclined to disturb the CA's finding that Escudero was constructively dismissed by Tan Brothers which, as employer, had the burden of proving that said employee was dismissed for a just and valid cause.[38] Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit.[39] The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.[40] Much though Tan Brothers may now be inclined to disparage the same as mere alibis, the fact that Escudero was deprived of office space, was not given further work assignment and was not paid her salaries until she was left with no choice but stop reporting for work all combine to make out a clear case of constructive dismissal. | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, we agree with the CA's earlier pronouncement that since respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, it is already estopped from belatedly raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. In this case, respondent filed position papers and other supporting documents to bolster its defense before the labor tribunals but in all these pleadings, the issue of lack of jurisdiction was never raised. It was only in its Supplemental Petition filed before the CA that respondent first brought the issue of lack of jurisdiction. We have consistently held that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party's active participation in the proceedings will estop such party from assailing its jurisdiction. It is an undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.[37] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[37] Constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.[38] In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.[39] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay"[30] and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,[31] constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[32] In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity[33] and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.[34] | |||||
|
2011-08-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Viewed in the light of the foregoing factual antecedents, we find that the CA reversibly erred in holding petitioners liable for constructively dismissing Leynes from her employment. There is said to be constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment.[41] Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[42] Stated otherwise, it is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.[43] In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.[44]To our mind, respondents have more than amply discharged this burden with proof of the circumstances surrounding Engr. Carlos' employment as Property Manager for the Project and the consequent unavailability of a similar position for Leynes. | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, equally settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14] But these findings are not infallible. When there is a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts.[15] The CA can grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, made a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence.[16] It is within the jurisdiction of the CA, whose jurisdiction over labor cases has been expanded to review the findings of the NLRC.[17] | |||||