Labor 1 - Digests - 110515
Labor 1 - Digests - 110515
Labor 1 - Digests - 110515
1 Espina v. CA
2 Alhambra v. NLRC
3 Imasen v. Alcon
4 Baguio Central Univ v. Gallente
5 Philbag v. Philbag Union
6 Sugue v. Triumph
7 Coca-Cola v. Garcia
8 Mansion Printing v. Bitara
9 Ang v. San Joaquin
10 PNB v. Arcobillas
11
12 Golden Ace v. Talde
13 Temic v. Cantos
14
15 Funcitonal Inc v. Granfil
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Issues/Held/Ratio
W/N the signatures of 25 out of the 28 employees
constituted sufficient compliance with the Rules
YES, it did.
1. Petitioners raised one common cause of action
against MY SAN and MONDE. They also share a
common interest and a common defense in the
complaint.
2. There is sufficient basis for the 25 petitioners to
speak for and in behalf of their co-petitioners to
file the petition in the CA.
W/N the closure of business by MY SAN is illegal
NO, it is valid.
1. MY SAN complied with the requirements under
Art. 283 of the Labor Code W
a. A written notice was given to the
employees and the DOLE at least a
month before the intended date of
cessation.
b. There was a bona fide cessationthe
ultimate test of validity of closure or
cessation of business.
c. There was payment amounting to at least
month pay for every year of service or
1 month pay, whichever is higher.
Petitioners even received termination pay
which was even beyond the amount
required bylaw.
2. Just as no law forces anyone to go into business,
no law can compel anybody to continue the same.
3. Closure or cessation includes both the complete
cessation of operations and the cessation of only
part of a companys business.
4. Since MY SANs closure was valid, there was no
illegal dismissal (by MY SAN) of petitioners to
speak of.
W/N the termination of employment of petitioners
by MONDE was illegal NO, it was valid.
1. Petitioners were notified of the standards they had
to meet to qualify as regular employees of MONDE
when the latter appraised them at the start of
their employment about the period of probation.
2. Two notices were sent to petitioners individually: a
notice appraising them of the particular acts or
omissions for which their dismissal was sought,
and a memorandum informing them that they
were terminated from work.
3. Petitioners were terminated prior to the expiration
of their probationary contracts (or on July 3,
2001).
a. They were terminable anytime prior to
such date.
4. It was clearly shown that MONDE acted in good
faith, as there is no dispute that petitioners had
been habitually absent, neglectful of their work,
and rendered unsatisfactory service.
LABOR: Digests | 110515 | kb | 1
Facts
On 27 June 1987, petitioner Alhambra Industries,
Inc. (ALHAMBRA), a Filipino cigar and cigarette
manufacturing and distribution company,
employed private respondent Danilo C. RUPISAN
as salesman on a six-month probationary basis.
II.
-
Issue/Held
W/N the NLRC finding of illegal dismissal, coupled
with the order of reinstatement, was proper. NO;
petition GRANTED, NLRC decision SET ASIDE.
Award of separation pay is deleted, RUPISAN
entitled to damages of Php10,000 for denial of
procedural due process.
III.
Ratio
The NLRC appears to have skirted the issue on the
existence of a just cause for dismissal, disposing
of the case only on the basis of absence of due
process.
ISSUES-HELD-RATIO
WON GALLENTE was dismissed with substantive due
process (i.e. for just or authorized cause): YES
ISSUES:
WON Garcia was accorded procedural due process before
her separation from work? No. She is entitled to nominal
damages in the amount of 30,000 pesos pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence.
RATIO:
2.
2.
3.
Petition is DENIED.
Philippine National Bank v. Mary Sheila Arcobillas
G.R. No. 179648; August 7, 2013; Del Castillo, J.
LABOR: Digests | 110515 | kb | 9
Facts
On May 15, 1998, the PNB Foreign Currency
Denomination-Savings Account (FCD-S/A) No.
305703555-1 of Avelina Nomad-Spoor was
credited with US$138.00. However, instead of
posting its peso equivalent of P5,517.10,
Mary Sheila ARCOBILLAS, the assigned
administrative teller at PNB Bacolod-Lacson
branch, erroneously posted US$5,517.10,
resulting in an overcredit of US$5,379.10. Said
amount was later withdrawn by Nomad-Spoor on
May 29, 1998 and June 8, 1998 to the damage of
PNB in the amount of P214,641.23.
II.
1.
2.
III.
Ratio
1. It is a well-established rule that a Motion for
Reconsideration is an indispensable
condition before an aggrieved party can
resort to the special civil action for
certiorari.
2.
IV.
(Abraham v. NLRC)
Employment history:
o
1993: Started as Special Projects Office of
the Materials Dept
o
1998: appointed Purchasing & ImportExport Manager of Logistics Dept
o
2007: appointed Warehouse and ImportExport Manager, the last position he held
before he was allegedly dismissed
illegally.