Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF PHILIPPINES v. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 163657 2012-04-18	INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. ROEL P. LOGARTA PERALTA, J.
Retrenchment is the reduction of work personnel usually due to poor financial returns, aimed to cut down costs for operation particularly on salaries and wages.[22] It is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees and is resorted by an employer primarily to avoid or minimize business losses.[23]
	GR Nos. 191138-39 2011-10-19	MAGDALA MULTIPURPOSE v. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LGS VELASCO JR., J.
It is, thus, clear that the filing of the notice of strike and the conduct of the strike-vote by KMLMS did not comply with the aforequoted mandatory requirements of law and its implementing rules. Consequently, the May 6, 2002 strike is illegal. As the Court held in Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. (HEPI) v. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN),[14] these requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply renders the strike illegal.
	GR No. 145817 2011-10-19	URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA SERENO, J.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the May 28, 2000 Decision [sic] and the October 19, 2000 [sic] Special Order of the RTC of Bago City, Branch 62,[86] are hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. However, the plaintiff-appellee [Peña] in CA GR CV No. 65756 is awarded the amount of P3 Million as reimbursement for his expenses as well as reasonable compensation for his efforts in clearing Urban Bank's property of unlawful occupants. The award of exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit are deleted, the same not having been sufficiently proven. The petition for Indirect Contempt against all the respondents is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. [87] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 145817 2011-10-19	URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA SERENO, J.
Urban Bank and the individual defendant bank directors and officers filed a common Notice of Appeal,[74] which was given due course.[75] In the appeal, they questioned the factual finding that an agency relationship existed between the bank and Peña.[76]
	GR No. 164648 2008-08-06	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
SO ORDERED.[24] On November 6, 2003, a Decision[25] was rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72698[26] and CA-G.R. CV No. 65756,[27] declaring the absence of an agency relationship between Urban Bank and Peña, and finding no sufficient basis to hold the respondents therein in contempt of court, thus:
	GR No. 164648 2008-08-06	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the May 28, 2000[28] decision and the October 19, 2000[29] Special Order of the RTC of Bago City, Branch 62, are hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. However, the plaintiff-appellee in CA GR CV NO. 65756 is awarded the amount of P3 Million as reimbursement for his expenses as well as reasonable compensation for his efforts in clearing Urban Bank's property of unlawful occupants. The award of exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit are deleted, the same not having been sufficiently proven. The petition for Indirect Contempt against all the respondents is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.