This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find, under the circumstances, that the NLRC had precipitately dismissed the appeal for non-perfection. As we held in Phil. Geothermal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] the petitioners' appeal should have been given due course, "in the broader interest of justice and with the desired objective of deciding the case on the merits." | |||||
|
2009-12-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the legality of his dismissal due to habitual absenteeism. Nonetheless, the NLRC awarded separation pay in favor of petitioner citing the case of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[10] The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads: | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of cases involving termination of employment since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[33] It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the inherent economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none).[34] | |||||