This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners claim that respondent is not entitled to financial assistance given that she is guilty of theft or embezzlement. The law and jurisprudence, on the other hand, allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee.[40] Financial assistance is granted as a measure of equity or social justice, and is in the nature or takes the place of severance compensation.[41] | |||||
|
2013-04-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| CCBPI is correct. This procedural issue being debated upon is not novel. The Court has already ruled in a number of cases that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. The recent case of Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. Hon. Voluntary Arbitrator Buenaventura C. Magsalin and Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines[6] reiterated the well-settled doctrine on this issue, to wit: In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-NUWHRAIN-APL v. Bacungan,[7] we repeated the well-settled rule that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. We held that: | |||||