Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CENTRAL PHILIPPINES BANDAG RETREADERS v. PRUDENCIO J. DIASNES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 198699 2013-10-09	REXIE A. HORMILLOSA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
Regarding the issue of separation pay, the case of Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. vs. Prudecio J. Diasnes[25] is instructive:The award of separation pay is authorized in the situations dealt with in Article 283 and Art. 284 of the Labor Code, but not in terminations of employment based on instances enumerated in Art. 282.
	GR No. 189686 2013-07-15	UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. WILFREDO Z. CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
As the rule now stands, the award of separation pay is authorized in the situations dealt with in Article 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, but not in terminations of employment based on instances enumerated in Article 282.[18] Article 282 states that: ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
	GR Nos. 180849 and 187143 2011-11-16	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DAN PADAO MENDOZA, J.
In Central Philippine Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes,[53] cited in Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company,[54] we discussed the parameters of awarding separation pay to dismissed employees as a measure of financial assistance: To reiterate our ruling in Toyota, labor adjudicatory officials and the CA must demur the award of separation pay based on social justice when an employee's dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willfull breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the person of the employer or his immediate family grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code that sanction dismissal of employees. They must be judicious and circumspect in awarding separation pay or financial assistance as the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress the employers. The commitment of the Court to the cause of labor should not embarrass us from sustaining the employers when they are right, as here. In fine, we should be more cautions in awarding financial assistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the law.[55] [Emphasis original. Underscoring supplied]
	GR No. 164181 2011-09-14	NISSAN MOTORS PHILS. v. VICTORINO ANGELO PERALTA, J.
In Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes,[33] this Court discussed the parameters of awarding separation pay to dismissed employees as a measure of financial assistance, viz: To reiterate our ruling in Toyota, labor adjudicatory officials and the CA must demur the award of separation pay based on social justice when an employee's dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the person of the employer or his immediate family - grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code that sanction dismissals of employees. They must be most judicious and circumspect in awarding separation pay or financial assistance as the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress the employers. The commitment of the Court to the cause of labor should not embarrass us from sustaining the employers when they are right, as here. In fine, we should be more cautious in awarding financial assistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the law.[34]
	GR Nos. 163293 & 163297 2010-12-13	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. CASTOR A. DOMPOR DEL CASTILLO, J.
[40] Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes, G. R. No. 163607, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 194,205.
	GR No. 165951 2010-03-30	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
In Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes,[29] this Court discussed the parameters of awarding separation pay to dismissed employees as a measure of financial assistance, viz: To reiterate our ruling in Toyota, labor adjudicatory officials and the CA must demur the award of separation pay based on social justice when an employee's dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the person of the employer or his immediate family - grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code that sanction dismissals of employees. They must be most judicious and circumspect in awarding separation pay or financial assistance as the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress the employers. The commitment of the Court to the cause of labor should not embarrass us from sustaining the employers when they are right, as here. In fine, we should be more cautious in awarding financial assistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the law.[30]
	GR No. 164016 2010-03-15	RENO FOODS v. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA - KATIPUNAN ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER DEL CASTILLO, J.
In fact, in the recent case of Toyota Motors Philippines, Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] we ruled that separation pay shall not be granted to all employees who are dismissed on any of the four grounds provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code. Such ruling was reiterated and further explained in Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes:[27]
	GR No. 171023 2009-12-18	ARSENIO S. QUIAMBAO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY DEL CASTILLO, J.
gross and habitual neglect of duty, still, he is not entitled to severance pay. In Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes,[19] we discussed the parameters of awarding separation pay to dismissed employees as a measure of financial assistance, viz: To reiterate our ruling in Toyota, labor adjudicatory officials and the CA must demur the award of separation pay based on social justice when an employee's dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the person of the employer or his immediate family - grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code that sanction dismissals of employees. They must be most judicious and circumspect in awarding separation pay or financial assistance as the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress the employers. The commitment of the Court to the cause of labor should not embarrass us from sustaining the employers when they are right, as here. In fine, we should be more cautious in awarding financial assistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the law.[20] (Emphasis supplied.)