This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-06-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Hence, respondent company cannot be faulted for having lost its trust and confidence in petitioner and in refusing to retain her as its employee considering that her continued employment is patently inimical to respondent company's interest. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect.[23] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under the Labor Code, only unjustly dismissed employees are entitled to retirement benefits and other privileges including reinstatement and backwages.[23] Since petitioner's dismissal was for a just cause, he is not entitled to any retirement benefit. To hold otherwise would be to reward acts of willful breach of trust by the employee. It would also open the floodgate to potential anomalous banking transactions by bank employees whose employments have been extended. Since a bank's operation is essentially imbued with public interest, it owes great fidelity to the public it deals with. In turn, it cannot be compelled to continue in its employ a person in whom it has lost trust and confidence and whose continued employment would patently be inimical to the bank's interest.[24] While the scale of justice is tilted in favor of workers, the law does not authorize blind submission to the claim of labor regardless of merit. | |||||
|
2003-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In fine, the lack of notice and hearing is considered as being a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which makes the dismissal ineffectual but not necessarily illegal. The procedural infirmity is then remedied by ordering the payment to the employee his full backwages from the time of his dismissal until the court finally rules that the dismissal has been for a valid cause.[22] | |||||