Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. LEONITO G. FRANCO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184735 2009-09-17	MIRIAM B. ELLECCION VDA. DE LECCIONES v. NLRC BRION, J.
The general rule is that the characterization by an employer of an employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of such a characterization or decision is not, as a general rule, subject to discretionary review on the part of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA. Such characterization may, however, be rejected if the same is found to be in violation of the law or is arbitrary or malicious.[25]
	GR No. 165756 2009-06-05	HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF PHILIPPINES v. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL NACHURA, J.
In case of redundancy, the employer must prove that: (1) a written notice was served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, has been paid; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) adoption of fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[52]
	GR No. 159641 2007-10-15	CALTEX v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in this Court. However, factual issues may be considered and resolved when the findings of facts and the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the CA,[12] as obtaining in the present case.
	GR No. 151158 2007-08-17	JOEL B. DE JESUS v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
It is a settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination. Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[19] However, factual issues may be considered and resolved when the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals,[20] as in this case.
	GR NO. 153031 2006-12-14	PCL SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent the first assigned error, it is a settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in this Court.[10] Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[11] Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[12] Factual issues may be considered and resolved only when the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the CA.[13] The reason for this is that the quasi-judicial agencies, like the Arbitration Board and the NLRC, have acquired a unique expertise because their jurisdiction are confined to specific matters.[14] In the present case, the question of whether private respondent is guilty of desertion is factual. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the CA are unanimous in their findings that private respondent is not guilty of desertion and that he has been illegally terminated from his employment. After a review of the records of the instant case, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of these tribunals.
	GR NO. 165811 2005-12-14	DAP CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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 Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof .... Thus, we have held that the employer must comply with the following requisites to ensure the validity of the redundancy program: 1) a written notice served on both the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; 2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; 3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and 4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[10] As mentioned earlier, respondent does not question the soundness of the redundancy program implemented by DAP, but the lack of notice required by law.