This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-09-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In view of the foregoing, respondents are entitled to the payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month salary for every year of service.[43] The awards of separation pay and backwages are not mutually exclusive, and both may be given to respondents.[44] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This postulation is not well-taken. On the contrary, petitioners failed to satisfy the burden of proving that the transfer was based on just or valid ground. Petitioners' bare assertions of imminent threat from the respondents are mere accusations which are not substantiated by any proof. This Court is proscribed from making conclusions based on mere presumptions or suppositions. An employee's fate cannot be justly hinged upon conjectures and surmises.[30] The act attributed against Tolores does not even convince us as he was merely a suspected culprit in the alleged sabotage for which no investigation took place to establish his guilt or culpability. Besides, Reyes still retained Tolores as an employee and chief baker when he could have dismissed him for cause if the allegations were indeed found true. In view of these, this Court finds no compelling reason to justify the transfer of respondents from chief bakers to utility/security personnel. What appears to this Court is that respondents' transfer was an act of retaliation on the part of petitioners due to the former's filing of complaints against them, and thus, was clearly made in bad faith. In fact, petitioner Reyes even admitted that he caused the reassignments due to the pending complaints filed against him. As the CA aptly held: In the case at bench, respondent Reyes failed to justify petitioners' transfer from the position of chief bakers to utility/security personnel. We find that the threat being alluded to by respondent Reyes that the petitioners might introduce harmful foreign substances in baking bread is imaginary and not real. We recall that what triggered the petitioners' reassignment was the filing of their complaints against private respondents in the NLRC. The petitioners were not even given an opportunity to refute the reason for the transfer. The drastic change in petitioners' nature of work unquestionably resulted in, as rightly perceived by them, a demeaning and humiliating work condition. The transfer was a demotion in rank, beyond doubt. There is demotion when an employee is transferred from a position of dignity to a servile or menial job. One does not need to stretch the imagination to distinguish the work of a chief baker to that of a security cum utility man.[31] | |||||
|
2012-01-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. In addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. [25] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as in this case where the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC vary from the findings of the Court of Appeals.[26] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review before this Court, as a general rule, only questions of law are allowed. An exception to this is when the findings of the administrative agencies below and the appellate court differ, as in the case at bar.[16] Thus, an independent evaluation of the facts of this case is called for, especially considering that, while the LA and the NLRC both found respondent's dismissal valid and legal, the bases for their findings are also different.[17] Hence, the claim of petitioner that these findings are conclusive upon us is incorrect. | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the employee was dismissed for a valid and just cause.[8] Petitioners have failed to discharge themselves of the burden. With respect to Javilgas' claim of illegal dismissal, petitioners merely alleged that | |||||