This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A pivotal argument raised by Gan in this petition is that Veneracion's 10th act of harassment his statement that Gan "[would] be given 15 days to look for another job" already constitutes actual illegal dismissal, a termination without just or valid cause. In support thereof, he cited the case of Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. v. Lebatique.[41] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The fact that [the] petitioners lost no time in filing the complaint for illegal dismissal lucidly negates [the] private respondents' claim that the former had abandoned their work. A contrary notion would not only be illogical but also absurd.[13] Indeed, prompt filing of a case for illegal dismissal, on one hand, is anathema to the concept of abandonment, on the other. | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot accept the contention of Megaforce that Lactao did not report to work after his recall and had abandoned his job since it failed to present credible proof of any act on the part of Lactao to abandon his employment. Moreover, it is a settled doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment of employment. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work.[23] The filing of such complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.[24] | |||||