This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Citing Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[48] petitioner claims that respondent should have been more vigilant of his rights as an employee because at stake was not only his position but also his means of livelihood.[49] Thus, he should have reported to his supervisor immediately after the July 20, 2000 raid at Post 33. | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Indophil, the employer gave the employee a letter requiring him to report and explain his unauthorized absences.[128] The employer gave the employee three (3) days to respond to the letter.[129] Instead, the employee filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal against the employer.[130] This court held that by failing to respond to the letter, the employee effectively resigned from his employment. Thus, to begin with, there was no dismissal of the employee.[131] The employee in that case should have acted promptly in the interest of protecting his employment.[132] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In some cases where there is neither a dismissal nor abandonment, we have previously held that separation pay may be awarded under appropriate circumstances. Thus, in Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] wherein the employer claimed that the employee had resigned/abandoned his work while the employee believed that he had been terminated, the Court held: We have turned a heedful eye on all the pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties and have concluded that there was NO DISMISSAL. Setting aside the other arguments of the parties which we find irrelevant, attention is called to the letter dated October 2, 1989 of petitioner's Personnel Manager, Mr. Nicasio B. Gaviola, to private respondent which the latter does not dispute, the full text of which reads: | |||||