This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Due to the strained relations of the parties, however, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative, when reinstatement is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[17] Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, the respondent is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate and distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively.[18] | |||||
|
2012-09-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to whether Park Hotel may be held solidarily liable with Burgos, the Court rules that before a corporation can be held accountable for the corporate liabilities of another, the veil of corporate fiction must first be pierced.[33] Thus, before Park Hotel can be held answerable for the obligations of Burgos to its employees, it must be sufficiently established that the two companies are actually a single corporate entity, such that the liability of one is the liability of the other.[34] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, respondent is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate and distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively.[25] | |||||
|
2010-04-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While the letter states that Peñaflor's resignation was irrevocable, it does not necessarily signify that it was also voluntarily executed. Precisely because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment, Peñaflor decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. This falls squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that jurisprudence defines, among others, as involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. It arises when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer exists and has become unbearable to the employee.[3] The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances.[4] With the appointment of Buenaobra to the position he then still occupied, Peñaflor felt that he was being eased out and this perception made him decide to leave the company. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At this point, it is proper to reiterate that for the dismissal of an employee to be valid, it must be for a just cause[19] or an authorized cause[20] and the requirements of due process[21] must necessarily be observed.[22] The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just or authorized cause, while the illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process.[23] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Concerning the solidary liability of respondents, we hold that respondent Matias Aznar III is not solidarily liable with respondent company. His function as the President of the company does not make him personally liable for the obligations of the latter. A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees. Obligations incurred by them while acting as corporate agents, are not their personal liability but the direct accountability of the corporation they represent.[45] | |||||