This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| To quell any doubts, it bears pointing out that the CA's reliance on Galaxie Steel Workers Union (GSWU-NAFLU-KMU) v. NLRC[38] and Cama v. Joni's Food Services, Inc.[39] was actually misplaced since no CBA was involved in those cases. As such, consistent with the parameters of Article 297 of the Labor Code as above-discussed, the payment of separation benefits in view of the employer's serious business losses in those cases was not in order. In the same light, North Davao Mining Corporation v. NLRC[40] was speciously applied by the CA given that the payment of separation benefits in that case was not sourced from a contractual CBA obligation but merely from a unilateral company practice which was deemed as an act of generosity on the part of the employer. It was in this context that the Court held that "to require [the company] to continue being generous when it is no longer in a position to do so would certainly be unduly oppressive, unfair and most revolting to the conscience."[41] The factual dissimilarity of these cases to Benson and petitioners' situation therefore precludes the application of the same ruling. | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The other allegation of the petitioners that "those who received the first payment were only tricked and deceived in(to) receiving the payment" deserves scant consideration. Said petitioners are not only ordinary laborers but mature, educated and intelligent people with college degrees, and considering the size of their group, it is unbelievable that they could have been easily duped into doing something against their will and self-interest. Absent a showing that they were indeed victims of trickery and deception, outside of their own self-serving affidavits, the petitioners' allegation does not hold water. Here, the petitioners and other employees legally separated were in fact given termination or separation pay despite the staggering loss sustained by the Bank. They were given a very good bargain in the compromise agreement. They, therefore, have no reason to complain. Without the subject compromise agreement, they would not have received any separation pay in light of our ruling in State Investment House, Inc. v. CA,[19] and North Davao Mining Corporation v. NLRC,[20] where we held that in cases of serious losses or financial reverses, the Labor Code does not impose any obligation upon the employer to pay separation benefits, for obvious reasons. | |||||