Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION v. BLAS F. OPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 185058 2015-11-09	JOVITA S. MANALO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY LEONEN, J.
[e]xcept as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.[47]
	GR No. 177167 2013-01-17	NELSON B. GAN v. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
On April 21, 2003, Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala dismissed the complaint for constructive dismissal.[13] He noted that Gan's separation from Galderma was voluntarily initiated and was concluded by the written resignation letter which was accepted in a business-like manner through a formal office correspondence. The text of Gan's letter was treated as conclusive, res ipsa loquitur. Agreeing with respondents' contention, the Labor Arbiter cited the case of St. Michael Academy v. NLRC[14] insofar as it enumerated the requisites of intimidation which would vitiate one's consent, but are wanting in Gan's case. Likewise pointed out was the presence of the sworn affidavits separately executed by Gan's former co-workers Gerry M. Castro, Annalyn M. Gamboa, Winston M. Marquez, and Abigail R. Peralta which were fully supportive of respondents' defenses. Lastly, applying Samaniego v. NLRC,[15] Dizon, Jr. vs. NLRC,[16] Habana v. NLRC,[17] and San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople[18] invoked by respondents, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Gan surely understood the legal effects of his resignation letter considering that he is an Industrial Engineering graduate of the Mapua Institute of Technology and has Master of Business Administration (MBA) units in Letran College. The fallo of the Decision disposed:
	GR No. 184885 2012-03-07	ERNESTO G. YMBONG v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have consistently held that so long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them.[35] In the instant case, ABS-CBN validly justified the implementation of Policy No. HR-ER-016. It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its objectivity and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of impartiality so that the confidence of the viewing and listening public in it will not be in any way eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.[36]
	GR No. 149640 2007-10-19	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NUMERIANO LAYOC CARPIO, J.
We agree with petitioners' position that given the discretion granted to the various divisions of SMC in the management and operation of their respective businesses and in the formulation and implementation of policies affecting their operations and their personnel, the "no time card policy" affecting all of the supervisory employees of the Beer Division is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The "no time card policy" undoubtedly caused pecuniary loss to respondents.[17] However, petitioners granted to respondents and other supervisory employees a 10% across-the-board increase in pay and night shift allowance, in addition to their yearly merit increase in basic salary, to cushion the impact of the loss. So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them.[18]
	GR NO. 165594 2007-04-23	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The respondent PLDT, as employer, has the recognized right and prerogative to select the persons to be hired and to designate the work as well as the employee or employees to perform it.[46] This includes the right of the respondent PLDT to determine the employees to be retained or discharged and who among the applicants are qualified and competent for a vacant position. The rationale for this principle is that respondent PLDT is in the best position to ascertain what is proper for the advancement of its interest. Thus, this Court cannot interfere in the wisdom and soundness of the respondent PLDT's decision as to who among the Switchmen should be retained or discharged or who should be transferred to vacant positions, as long as such was made in good faith and not for the purpose of curbing the rights of an employee.[47] Since the respondent PLDT determined that petitioner's services are no longer necessary either as a Switchman or in any other position, and such determination was made in good faith and in furtherance of its business interest, the petitioner's contention that he should be the last switchman to be laid-off by reason of his qualifications and outstanding work must fail.
	GR NO. 166616 2006-01-27	FIRST DOMINION RESOURCES CORPORATION v. MERCURIO PEÑARANDA CORONA, J.
In numerous decisions, this Court has recognized that management has the right to formulate reasonable rules to regulate the conduct of its employees for the protection of its interests. [19] These reasonable house rules are considered by the Court as lawful orders and therefore violations thereof will justify dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. [20]
	GR No. 158606 2004-03-09	BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. JOSEPHINE FIANZA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The resolution of this case depends upon a determination of the validity of Fianza's transfer from Property Custodian to Bill Distributor. To resolve this point, the scope and limits of the exercise of management prerogative must be balanced against the security of tenure given to labor. In this jurisdiction, we recognize that management has a wide latitude to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment,[31] including the freedom to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business.[32] On the other hand, the transfer of an employee may constitute constructive dismissal when it amounts to "an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee."[33]