This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| While petitioner's dismissal is lawful, we sustain the award of P30,000 nominal damages in favor of petitioner for respondent's non-observance of the due process requirements in dismissing her. We agree with the Court of Appeals, which in turn upheld the NLRC, that the 48 hours given to petitioner to explain her side was insufficient time to "consult the union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence and decide on [her defenses]."[20] Petitioner should have been given at least five calendar days from receipt of the notice to prepare for her defense. Notwithstanding, the lack of statutory due process does not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual when the dismissal was for just cause,[21] but it will merit the grant of nominal damages as indemnification. | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Our Haus questions the respondents' entitlement to SIL pay by pointing out that this claim was not included in the pro forma complaint filed with the NLRC. However, we agree with the CA that such omission does not bar the labor tribunals from touching upon this cause of action since this was raised and discussed in the respondents' position paper. In Samar-Med Distribution v. National Labor Relations Commission,[53] we held: Firstly, petitioner's contention that the validity of Gutang's dismissal should not be determined because it had not been included in his complaint before the NLRC is bereft of merit. The complaint of Gutang was a mere checklist of possible causes of action that he might have against Roleda. Such manner of preparing the complaint was obviously designed to facilitate the filing of complaints by employees and laborers who are thereby enabled to expediently set forth their grievances in a general manner. But the non-inclusion in the complaint of the issue on the dismissal did not necessarily mean that the validity of the dismissal could not be an issue. The rules of the NLRC require the submission of verified position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, and bar the inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in the complaint or position paper from the time of their submission by the parties. In view of this, Gutang's cause of action should be ascertained not from a reading of his complaint alone but also from a consideration and evaluation of both his complaint and position paper.[54] | |||||