This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[D]emotion involves a situation in which an employee is relegated to a subordinate or less important position constituting a reduction to a lower grade or rank, with a corresponding decrease in duties and responsibilities, and usually accompanied by a decrease in salary."[32] When there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee; or when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, the transfer of an employee may constitute constructive dismissal.[33] | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We will here review the factual conclusions of the CA which are contrary to those of the administrative tribunal. The conflict in findings is a first signal that a further review may be needed. This is so because, as we have long held in a number of cases, factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, which are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence.[17] Such that, while our well-entrenched holding is that this Court is not a trier of facts,[18] we can go to the rule exceptions culled from jurisprudence on rule application, among such exception being that the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[19] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| It would be unreasonable to compel private respondent to wait until its license is cancelled and it is materially injured before removing the cause of the impending evil. Neither can the courts step in to force private respondent to reassign or transfer petitioner Santos under these circumstances. Petitioner Santos is not in the position to demand that she be given a different work assignment when what necessitated her transfer in the first place was her own fault or failing. The prerogative to determine the place or station where an employee is best qualified to serve the interests of the company on the basis of the his or her qualifications, training and performance belongs solely to the employer.[14] The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority.[15] | |||||
|
2007-03-01 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot claim constructive dismissal simply because her transfer to another department was against her wishes and, in her view, amounts to a demotion. "Certainly, the Court cannot accept the proposition that when an employee opposes his employer's decision to transfer him to another work place, there being no bad faith or underhanded motives on the part of either party, it is the employee's wishes that should be made to prevail."[22]Mere incidental inconvenience is not enough to warrant a claim of constructive dismissal.[23] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, we recognize that management has wide latitude to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, to the requirements of its business.[43] The scope and limits of the exercise of management prerogative, however, should attain a state of equilibrium when pitted against the constitutional right of labor to security of tenure. | |||||