This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[20] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[28] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Consequently, it is Article 283 of the Labor Code and not Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 that is controlling. Thus, respondent is entitled to payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Considering that respondent was employed by Petrocon for a period of eight (8) months, he is entitled to receive one (1) month pay as separation pay. In addition, pursuant to current jurisprudence,[37] for failure to fully comply with the statutory due process of sufficient notice, respondent is entitled to nominal damages in the amount P50,000.00. | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The records of this case disclosed that there was absolutely no written notice given by petitioner corporation to the respondent and to the DOLE prior to the cessation of its business operations. This is evident from the fact that petitioner corporation effected respondent's dismissal on the same date that it decided to stop and cease its business operations. The necessary consequence of such failure to comply with the one-month prior written notice rule, which constitutes a violation of an employee's right to statutory due process, is the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. [54] In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., this Court further held: In Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission [citation omitted], we noted that "a job is more than the salary that it carries." There is a psychological effect or a stigma in immediately finding one's self laid off from work. This is exactly why our labor laws have provided for mandating procedural due process clauses. Our laws, while recognizing the right of employers to terminate employees it cannot sustain, also recognize the employee's right to be properly informed of the impending severance of his ties with the company he is working for. x x x. | |||||
|
2009-06-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On 23 July 1999, the RTC issued an Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of LBP.[31] Aggrieved, LBP filed its appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R CV No. 65923.[32] LBP filed, on 27 September 2000, its Appellant's Brief in CA-G.R CV No. 65923.[33] DAR joined the appeal of LBP by filing, on 18 January 2001, in CA-G.R CV No. 65923, a Manifestation adopting in toto the Appellant's Brief of LBP.[34] | |||||