This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract entered into by an employer and a legitimate labor organization concerning the terms and conditions of employment.[1] Like any other contract, it has the force of law between the parties and, thus, should be complied with in good faith.[2] Unilateral changes or suspensions in the implementation of the provisions of the CBA, therefore, cannot be allowed without the consent of both parties. | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners question the CA's reliance on HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar[20] in affirming Dumadag's award based solely on the findings of his physicians. They maintain that although the Court's ruling in HFS Philippines recognized the prerogative of the seafarer to dispute the company-designated physician's report by seasonably consulting another doctor, the contrary medical report shall be evaluated first by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merit. The CA, the petitioners point out, failed to evaluate the merit of the reports of Dumadag's physicians. | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The law looks tenderly on laborers. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to them, the balance must be tilted in their favor consistent with the principle of social justice.[20] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In HFS Philippines v. Pilar,[13] where the findings of the independent physicians were given more credence than those of the company-designated physicians, the Court held: The bottomline is this: the certification of the company-designated physician would defeat respondent's claim while the opinion of the independent physicians would uphold such claim. In such a situation, we adopt the findings favorable to respondent. | |||||