This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the Court, in exceptional cases, has granted financial assistance to legally dismissed employees as an act of "social justice" or based on "equity" so long as the dismissal was not for serious misconduct, does not reflect on the employee's moral character, or would involve moral turpitude.[28] In Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc. v. Angelo,[29] the Court ruled that, inspired by compassionate and social justice, it has in the past awarded financial assistance to dismissed employees when circumstances warranted such an award. Meanwhile, in Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. v. Albayda, Jr.,[30] the Court held that an award to the employee of separation pay by way of financial assistance, equivalent to one-half (1/2) month's pay for every year of service, is equitable. The Court, in Pharmacia, noted, among others, that although the employee's actions constituted a valid ground to terminate his services, the same is not so reprehensible as to warrant complete disregard of his long years of service. | |||||
|
2013-01-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The CA held that Padillo could not, absent any agreement with the Bank, receive any retirement benefits pursuant to Article 300 of the Labor Code considering that he was only fifty-five (55) years old when he retired.[19] It likewise found the evidence insufficient to prove that the Bank has an existing company policy of granting retirement benefits to its aging employees. Finally, citing the case of Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan (Villaruel),[20] it pronounced that separation pay on the ground of disease under Article 297 of the Labor Code should not be given to Padillo because he was the one who initiated the severance of his employment and that even before September 10, 2007, he already stopped working due to his poor and failing health. [21] | |||||