This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-03-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The NLRC further ruled that, contrary to the allegation of the complainants, the first-in-last-out policy was observed by respondents, since evidence of the complainants' efficiency and performance for the past years were presented to show that this criteria was considered. The labor tribunal pointed out that this evidence was not rebutted by the complainants. It further ruled that complainants failed to show that they were forced to sign quitclaims when they received their respective separation pay. Citing Veloso v. Department of Labor and Employment, [21] it declared that "dire necessity" is not an acceptable reason to set aside quitclaims otherwise valid. | |||||