This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Then, too, we should remember that "the dismissal of an employee's appeal on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor."[28] Under the Constitution[29] and the Labor Code,[30] the State is bound to protect labor and assure the rights of workers to security of tenure tenurial security being a preferred constitutional right that, under these fundamental guidelines, technical infirmities in labor pleadings cannot defeat.[31] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| All said, what behooves the Court is the lack of evidence on record which establishes that respondent informed petitioner that his failure to submit the required medical certificate will result in his lack of work assignment. It is a basic principle of labor protection in this jurisdiction that a worker cannot be deprived of his job without satisfying the requirements of due process.[44] Labor is property and the right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty.[45] As enshrined under the Bill of Rights, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.[46] The due process requirement in the deprivation of one's employment is transcendental that it limits the exercise of the management prerogative of the employer to control and regulate the affairs of the business. In the case at bar, all that respondent employer needed to prove was that petitioner employee was notified that his failure to submit the required medical certificate will result in his lack of work assignment and eventually the termination of his employment as a security guard. There is no iota of evidence in the records, save for the bare allegations of respondent, that petitioner was notified of such consequence for non- submission. In truth, the facts of the case clearly show that respondent even reassigned petitioner to Gomez Construction from his PAIJR post despite the non-submission of a medical certificate. If it was indeed the policy of respondent not to give petitioner any work assignment without the medical certificate, why was petitioner reassigned despite his noncompliance? | |||||