Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 209559 2015-12-09	ENCHANTED KINGDOM v. MIGUEL J. VERZO MENDOZA, J.
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights, which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.[52]
	GR No. 194884 2014-10-22	IMASEN PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. RAMONCHITO T. ALCON BRION, J.
In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however, does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer.[23] The constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of labor.[24] The constitutional and legal protection equally recognize the employer's right and prerogative to manage its operation according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play.
	GR No. 197384 2013-01-30	SAMPAGUITA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. NLRC BRION, J.
All told, we find substantial evidence supporting Sagad's removal as a bus driver. Through his reckless driving and his schemes to defraud the company, Sagad committed serious misconduct and breach of the trust and confidence of his employer, which, without doubt, are just causes for his separation from the service. It is well to stress, at this point, an earlier pronouncement of the Court "that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine."[51]
	GR No. 180660 2010-07-20	MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT v. NITO DUAL PEREZ, J.
Withal, the law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its own rights, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.[38]
	GR No. 165951 2010-03-30	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
Withal, the law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its own rights, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.[34]