This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court held that the "money claims of workers" referred to in Article 217[60] of the Labor Code embraces money claims which arise out of or in connection with the employer-employee relationship, or some aspect or incident of such relationship.[61] | |||||
|
2014-08-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Similarly, we ruled in the recent case of Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc.[41] that not all disputes between an employer and his employees fall within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals such that when the claim for damages is grounded on the "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause of an employee to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave of absence, the same falls within the purview of Civil Law, to wit: As early as Singapore Airlines Limited v. Paño, we established that not all disputes between an employer and his employee(s) fall within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals. We differentiated between abandonment per se and the manner and consequent effects of such abandonment and ruled that the first, is a labor case, while the second, is a civil law case. | |||||