This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The rationale behind this mandatory characterization is premised on the fact that company rules and regulations which regulate the procedure and requirements for termination, are generally binding on the employer. Thus, as pronounced in Suico v. NLRC, et al.:[57] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment.[31] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||