Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARNULFO O. ENDICO v. QUANTUM FOODS DISTRIBUTION CENTER

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198783 2013-04-15	ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business. For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect not only the welfare of the employees, but also the right of the employers.[22]
	GR No. 177816 2011-08-03	NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES PEREZ, J.
Viewed in the light of the foregoing factual antecedents, we find that the CA reversibly erred in holding petitioners liable for constructively dismissing Leynes from her employment. There is said to be constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment.[41] Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[42] Stated otherwise, it is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.[43] In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.[44]To our mind, respondents have more than amply discharged this burden with proof of the circumstances surrounding Engr. Carlos' employment as Property Manager for the Project and the consequent unavailability of a similar position for Leynes.
	GR No. 185556 2011-03-28	SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NACHURA, J.
Indeed, jurisprudence recognizes the right to exercise management prerogative. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business. For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[63] However, the exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[64] The CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and, as previously stated, compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[65]
	GR No. 170661 2009-12-04	RAMON B. FORMANTES v. DUNCAN PHARMACEUTICALS PERALTA, J.
Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.[40]
	GR Nos. 164813 and 174590 2009-08-14	LOWE v. CA CARPIO, J.
As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. However, this rule admits of exceptions,[16] such as in this case where the findings of the Labor Arbiter vary from the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.