Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNICORN SAFETY GLASS v. RODRIGO BASARTE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 185449 2014-11-12	GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES v. MARINA L. ANGUS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The release and quitclaim signed by Angus cannot be used by petitioners to legalize the denial of Angus' rightful claims. As aptly observed by the CA, the terms of the quitclaim authorizes Angus to receive less than what she is legally entitled to. "Under prevailing jurisprudence, x x x a quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled."[43] It was held to be "ineffective in barring claims for the full measure of the worker's rights and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel".[44] Moreover, release and quitclaims are often looked upon with disfavor when the waiver was not done voluntarily by employees who were pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their obligations.[45]
	GR NO. 182486 2012-06-20	PHILBAG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILBAG WORKERS UNION-LAKAS AT GABAY NG MANGGAGAWANG NAGKAKAISA BRION, J.
It is obvious that the company overstepped the bounds of its management prerogative in the dismissal of Mauricio and Camacho. It lost sight of the principle that management prerogative must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of the workers in the spirit of fairness and with justice in mind.[44]
	GR No. 173882 2012-02-15	JULIE’S BAKESHOP v. HENRY ARNAIZ EDGAR NAPAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
We have held that management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.[28]
	GR No. 163147 2007-10-10	LINTON COMMERCIAL CO. v. ALEX A. HELLERA TINGA, J,
Certainly, management has the prerogative to come up with measures to ensure profitability or loss minimization. However, such privilege is not absolute. Management prerogative must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.[48]
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Constructive dismissal or constructive discharge has been defined as quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. [30] In the case at bar, a demotion in rank or diminution in pay was never raised as an issue. Settled then is the fact that petitioner suffered no demotion in rank or diminution in pay that could give rise to a cause of action against respondent bank for constructive dismissal under this definition.
	GR NO. 160213 2007-01-30	ZENAIDA ANGELES v. LORDY FERNANDEZ
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship. Of the two, the second element is the more determinative factor and should be manifested by some overt acts.[24]
	GR NO. 171392 2006-10-30	RUPERTO SULDAO v. CIMECH SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
After a painstaking review of the records, we uphold the findings of the Labor Arbiter and of the NLRC that petitioner was constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal or a constructive discharge has been defined as quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[11] In the instant case, there is constructive dismissal because the continued employment of petitioner is rendered impossible so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment.[12]
	GR NO. 159333 2006-07-31	ARSENIO T. MENDIOLA v. CA PUNO, J.
Although there is no reduction of the salary of petitioner, constructive dismissal is still present because continued employment of petitioner is rendered, at the very least, unreasonable.[46] There is an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by the employer that continued employment may become so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment.[47]
	GR NO. 162957 2006-03-06	UNITED KIMBERLY-CLARK EMPLOYEES UNION — PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS' ORGANIZATION v. KIMBERLY — CLARK PHILIPPINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court has recognized in numerous instances the undoubted right of the employer to regulate, according to his own discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including but not limited to, work assignments and supervision, working methods and regulations, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, and hiring, supervision, transfer, discipline, lay off, dismissal and recall of workers. Encompassing though it could be, the exercise of this right is not absolute. Management prerogative must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws, valid agreements such as the individual contract of employment and the collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of justice and fair play. [49] In this case, the Court finds that respondent acted in accord with the CBA and the November 7, 1995 Guidelines, which, by agreement of the parties, may be implemented by respondent after January 1, 1997.