Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ME-SHURN CORPORATION v. ME-SHURN WORKERS UNION-FSM

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Me-Shurn Corporation v. Me-Shurn Workers Union-FSM,[62] the corporation shut down its operations allegedly due to financial losses and paid its workers separation benefits. Yet, barely one month after the shutdown, the corporation resumed operations. In light of such evidence of resumption of operations, the Court held that the earlier shutdown of the corporation was in bad faith.
	GR NO. 169353 2007-04-13	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Article. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. In termination cases, it is incumbent upon the employer to prove by the quantum of evidence required by law that the dismissal of an employee is not illegal; otherwise the dismissal would be unjustified.[39] In the case at bar, petitioner failed to discharge the burden.
	GR NO. 157133 2006-01-30	BUSINESS SERVICES OF FUTURE TODAY v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Notice of closure to the DOLE is mandatory. It allows the DOLE to ascertain whether the closure and/or dismissals were done in good faith and not a pretext for evading obligations to the employees. This requirement protects the workers' right to security of tenure. Failure to comply with this requirement taints the dismissal.[10] This rule, however, admits of exceptions. If the employee consented to his retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operation, the required prior notice to the DOLE is not necessary as the employee thereby acknowledges the existence of a valid cause for termination of his employment.[11]
	GR No. 143023 2005-11-29	EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CENTER v. CECILIA BEA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer, and the latter's failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.[19] In the instant case, we agree with the CA that the just cause relied upon by the petitioner in dismissing the private respondent was not proved.
	GR NO. 155264 2005-05-06	FLOREN HOTEL v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
We reiterate here the settled rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of showing that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.[37] Failure by the employer to discharge this burden, as in this case, would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified, and therefore illegal.[38]
	GR NO. 161217 2005-05-04	BLUCOR MINERALS CORPORATION v. ALFREDO M. AMARILLA PANGANIBAN, J.
Innumerable times in the past, this Court has stressed that, absent any convincing evidence that the alleged losses are substantial and actual, the dismissal of employees would be unjustified. The latest reiteration of this iron-clad doctrine is in Me-Shurn Corporation v. Me-Shurn Workers Union-FSM,[12] in which the Court ruled as follows:"Basic is the rule in termination cases that the employer bears the burden of showing that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Otherwise, the dismissal is deemed unjustified. Apropos this responsibility, petitioner corporation should have presented clear and convincing evidence of imminent economic or business reversals as a form of affirmative defense in the proceedings before the labor arbiter or, under justifiable circumstances, even on appeal with the NLRC."