Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. CAROLINE C. DEL ROSARIO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 194410 2015-10-14	OCEAN EAST AGENCY v. ALLAN I. LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
With regard to petitioners' failure to establish the third and fourth requisites for a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the Court stresses the importance of having fair and reasonable criteria, such as but not limited to (a) less preferred status, e.g., temporary employee; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.[34] The presence of such criteria used by the employer shows good faith on its part and is evidence that the implementation of redundancy was painstakingly done by the employer in order to properly justify the termination from the service of its employees.[35] Conversely, the absence of criteria in the selection of an employee to be dismissed and the erroneous implementation of the criterion selected, both render invalid the redundancy because both have the ultimate effect of illegally dismissing an employee.[36]
	GR No. 163091 2010-10-06	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[33]
	GR No. 178083 2009-10-02	FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On a final note, this Court finds that the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award should be tempered, considering the number of flight attendants who stand to receive monetary awards and the totality of all amounts due to them. To be sure, attorney's fees in labor cases are awarded specifically in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests. In such cases, a maximum of 10% of the total monetary award is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[32] The award of attorney's fees is proper where there is a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[33]
	GR Nos. 158930-31 2008-03-03	UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG v. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that Nestlé was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted x x x"[27] in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.
	GR No. 173231 2007-12-28	RUBEN L. ANDRADA v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, simply put, redundancy exists when the number of employees is in excess of what is reasonably necessary to operate the business. The declaration of redundant positions is a management prerogative. The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and therefore properly terminable is an exercise of business judgment by the employer. The wisdom or soundness of this judgment is not subject to the discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.[14]
	GR NO. 165594 2007-04-23	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. A position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors such as over-hiring of workers, decrease in volume of business, or dropping a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[43]
	GR NO. 169652 2006-10-09	ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals, however, erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages inasmuch as Lacerna failed to prove that AIMS and Proxy are guilty of bad faith. While it is true that they were not able to justify Lacerna's dismissal, the same does not automatically amount to bad faith. Moral and exemplary damages cannot be based solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed the employee without cause or due process. The termination must be attended with bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and that social humiliation, wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted therefrom. Similarly, exemplary damages are recoverable only when the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. To merit the award of these damages, additional facts showing bad faith are necessary[15] but Lacerna failed to plead and prove the same in this case. Hence, the awards of moral and exemplary damages should be deleted.
	GR NO. 158930-31 2006-08-22	UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES -DRUG v. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Except for the assertion put forth by UFE-DFA-KMU, neither the second Notice of Strike nor the records of these cases substantiate a finding of unfair labor practice. It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief.[58] In its letter[59] to UFE-DFA-KMU of 29 May 2001, though Nestlé underscored its position that "unilateral grants, one-time company grants, company-initiated policies and programs, which include, but are not limited to the Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium, are by their very nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom," such attitude is not tantamount to refusal to bargain. This is especially true when it is viewed in the light of the fact that eight out of nine bargaining units have allegedly agreed to treat the Retirement Plan as a unilateral grant. Nestlé, therefore, cannot be faulted for considering the same benefit as unilaterally granted. To be sure, it must be shown that Nestlé was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, or grave anxiety resulted x x x"[60] in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations.