Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO ABABON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173154 2013-12-09	SANGWOO PHILIPPINES v. SANGWOO PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Keeping with these principles, the Court finds that the LA, NLRC, and CA erred in ruling that SPI complied with the notice requirement when it merely posted various copies of its notice of closure in conspicuous places within the business premises. As earlier explained, SPI was required to serve written notices of termination to its employees, which it, however, failed to do. It is well to stress that while SPI had a valid ground to terminate its employees, i.e., closure of business, its failure to comply with the proper procedure for termination renders it liable to pay the employee nominal damages for such omission. Based on existing jurisprudence, an employer which has a valid cause for dismissing its employee but conducts the dismissal with procedural infirmity is liable to pay the employee nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 if the ground for dismissal is a just cause, or the amount of P50,000.00 if the ground for dismissal is an authorized cause.[35] However, case law exhorts that in instances where the payment of such damages becomes impossible, unjust, or too burdensome, modification becomes necessary in order to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing circumstances.[36] Thus, in the case of Industrial Timber Corporation v. Ababon[37] (Industrial Timber), the Court reduced the amount of nominal damages awarded to employees from P50,000.00 to P10,000.00 since the authorized cause of termination was the employer's closure or cessation of business which was done in good faith and due to circumstances beyond the employer's control, viz.:[38]
	GR No. 171993 2011-12-12	MARC II MARKETING v. ALFREDO M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
From the afore-quoted provision, the closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking may either be due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise. If the closure or cessation was due to serious business losses or financial reverses, it is incumbent upon the employer to sufficiently and convincingly prove the same. If it is otherwise, the employer can lawfully close shop anytime as long as it was bona fide in character and not impelled by a motive to defeat or circumvent the tenurial rights of employees and as long as the terminated employees were paid in the amount corresponding to their length of service. [47]
	GR No. 173342 2010-10-13	ZAMBOANGA FOREST MANAGERS CORP. v. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER PEREZ, J.
Admittedly, the rule that a judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed, altered or modified admits of exceptions in special cases.[37] In filing the petition at hand, however, ZFMC has once again hindered the proper appreciation of the facts of the case by failing to submit copies of the BFD Director's orders dated 8 May 1974 and 11 November 1974, a complete copy of the 25 June 1985 decision in MNR Case No. 4023 and the pleadings the parties filed before the MNR and the Office of the President. Even if we were, therefore, to excuse ZFMC's procedural lapses before the CA, there would still be a paucity of bases for the reversal of the 30 June 2003 decision in O.P. Case No. 5613.
	GR Nos. 178222-23 2010-09-29	MANILA MINING CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS CHAPTER v. MANILA MINING CORP. PEREZ, J.
The Court is not impressed with the claim that actual severe financial losses exempt MMC from paying separation benefits to complainants. In the first place, MMC did not appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC's award of separation pay to complainants. MMC's failure had the effect of making the awards final so that MMC could no longer seek any other affirmative relief. In the second place, the non-issuance of a permit forced MMC to permanently cease its business operations, as confirmed by the Court of Appeals. Under Article 283, the employer can lawfully close shop anytime as long as cessation of or withdrawal from business operations is bona fide in character and not impelled by a motive to defeat or circumvent the tenurial rights of employees, and as long as he pays his employees their termination pay in the amount corresponding to their length of service.[26] The cessation of operations, in the case at bar is of such nature. It was proven that MMC stopped its operations precisely due to failure to secure permit to operate a tailings pond. Separation pay must nonetheless be given to the separated employees.
	GR No. 169434 2008-03-28	LAZARO V. DACUT v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
The first issue deals with technical rules and procedural matters. Well-settled is the rule that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. [12] In fact, it is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that labor officials shall use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. [13]