Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201595 2016-01-25	ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission' of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize."[50] "[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization."[51] "[T]he term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization."[52]
	GR No. 176908 2015-11-11	PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PERALTA, J.
Petitioners contend that the principle of stare decisis is not applicable because the factual circumstances of this case and those in the case of Pepsi-Cola Products, Inc. v. Molon,[4] are divergent. According to petitioners, records in Molon show that both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) had already determined that Pepsi complied with the requirements of substantial loss and due notice to both the DOLE and the workers to be retrenched, and that the requisite separation pay had already been paid as evidenced by the September 1999 quitclaims. In contrast, petitioners point out that a few days after service of their notices of termination, four (4) employees[5] were regularized, and replacements to the forty-seven (47) dismissed employees were also hired, and that they have not yet received their separation pay. Petitioners conclude that respondent. Pepsi-Cola Products, Inc. (PCPI) failed to prove the fourth and the fifth requisites of a valid retrenchment program,[6] as the CA and the NLRC were silent on the matter.
	GR Nos. 178382-83 2015-09-23	CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA v. JOSEPH BASSO JARDELEZA, J.
Thus, the Court of Appeals may grant the petition when the factual hidings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when its necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.[64] To make these findings, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own factual determination.[65]
	GR No. 184397 2015-09-09	ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED CHILDREN PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
This Court, in turn, has the same authority to sift through the factual findings of both the CA and the NLRC in the event of their conflict.[45] This Court, therefore, is not precluded from reviewing the factual issues when there are conflicting findings by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[46]
	GR No. 176908 2015-03-25	PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PERALTA, J.
During the pendency of the petition, the Court rendered a Decision dated February 18, 2013 in the related case of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon,[18] the dispositive portion of which reads:
	GR No. 187621 2014-09-24	MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE EMPLOYEES UNION v. MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE REYES, J.
(1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[26] (Emphasis ours)
	GR No. 200222 2013-08-28	INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS v. ADONIS A. PIONILLA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As a general rule, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement (or separation pay, if reinstatement is not viable) and payment of full backwages. In certain cases, however, the Court has carved out an exception to the foregoing rule and thereby ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages on account of the following: (a) the fact that dismissal of the employee would be too harsh of a penalty; and (b) that the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. The aforesaid exception was recently applied in the case of Pepsi-Cola Products, Phils., Inc. v. Molon,[22] wherein the Court, citing several precedents, held as follows:An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.[23] In certain cases, however, the Court has ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the employee would be too harsh a penalty; and (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. For instance, in the case of Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment[24] the Court ruled as follows: