This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-01-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The ultimate test of the validity of closure or cessation of establishment or undertaking is that it must be bona fide in character. And the burden of proving such falls upon the employer.[26] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We confirm in this regard that, by law and subject to the State's corollary right to review its determination,[37] management has the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect.[38] Included in this management right is the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long as it is done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.[39] Article 283 of our Labor Code provides: Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the [Department of Labor and Employment] at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. [Italics, underscores and emphases ours] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Daikoku's substantial rights, if any, may still be amply addressed in the appellate proceedings Alberto instituted and pending before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100714.[9] As to Alberto, his appeal opens de novo his action for illegal dismissal vis-à-vis the decision of the NLRC. At the very least, Daikoku still had the opportunity to be heard in opposition to Alberto's appeal. Be that as it may, it behooves the Court to refrain from taking any dispositive action that will likely preempt the CA in its disposition of Alberto's appeal.[10] Indeed, the issue as to whether or not there was a valid ground for the dismissal of workers is factual in nature,[11] best threshed out before the appellate court which has jurisdiction to rule over controversies traversing both issues or questions of fact and law. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Closure or cessation of business is the complete or partial[49] cessation of the operations and/or shut-down of the establishment of the employer. It is carried out to either stave off the financial ruin[50] or promote the business interest of the employer.[51] | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is true that under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring all petitioners to affix their signature to the certification on non-forum shopping. Recently, the Court has deemed it proper to relax said rule by considering the signature of only one among numerous petitioners as substantial compliance in cases where all petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense.[4] In the present case, petitioners do share a common cause of action, that of illegal dismissal. | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is nothing on record which shows that the closure of the company was made in bad faith. Neither was the closure motivated by any union activity of the employees; rather, it was dictated by necessity. Despite petitioners' allegations, no convincing proof was ever presented to establish their claim that the company's closure was an attempt at union-busting. Allegations are not proof and it behooved upon petitioners to substantiate the same.[13] | |||||