This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Although there is just cause for dismissing the Respondent Employees, we find that UIC failed to comply with the mandatory two-notice due process requirement. Under our labor laws, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed employee has been served two written notices: (a) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b) the other to inform him of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[73] The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee; otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules.[74] The records show that UIC sent only one such written notice to Respondent Employees on February 21, 1995, i.e., a notice of termination effective at the close of business of the same date.[75] We do not agree with UIC's submission that the agreement to arbitrate and the request to comply with the arbitration decision constitute the "first notice" required by law,[76] considering that UIC was unable to establish by substantial evidence that these categorically contain what is legally required to appear in the first notice. In fine, we agree with the observation of the Court of Appeals that the Respondent Employees were hastily terminated.[77] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[25] the Court ruled: Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law, but the rudimentary requirements of due process, basic to which are that an opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself must be observed before an employee may be dismissed.[26] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[28] Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that Palad was terminated for valid reasons. In fact, the NLRC found that petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of the performance evaluation which petitioner claims to have conducted on Palad, where Palad received a performance rating of only 27.75%. Petitioner merely relies on the performance evaluation to prove Palad's inefficiency. It was likewise not shown that petitioner ever apprised Palad of the performance standards set by the company. When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.[29] | |||||
|
2007-07-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Sec. 8. Disease as a ground for dismissal. Where the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the employer shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave. The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health. (Emphasis supplied) For a dismissal on the ground of disease to be considered valid, two requisites must concur: (a) the employee must be suffering from a disease which cannot be cured within six months and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees; and (b) a certification to that effect must be issued by a competent public health authority.[26] The burden falls upon the employer to establish these requisites,[27] and in the absence of such certification, the dismissal must necessarily be declared illegal.[28] As succinctly stressed in Tan v. NLRC,[29] "it is only where there is a prior certification from a competent public authority that the disease afflicting the employee sought to be dismissed is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within six (6) months even with proper medical treatment that the latter could be validly terminated from his job."[30] | |||||