Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 120 views

    Labor Law Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sarte
    The document discusses three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to labor and employment law: 1) The first case examines whether evidence obtained without governmental interference can be used against a defendant, finding that evidence discovered by private persons without state involvement does not violate constitutional protections. 2) The second case looks at whether an employee was validly dismissed for incompetence when the employer failed to follow due process requirements of two notices, determining the notices provided were too general and did not properly notify of impending dismissal. 3) The third case analyzes if employees were validly dismissed due to business closure even though the employer did not notify the Department of Labor, deciding notice is required except if an employee consented to retrenchment or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Labor Law Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sarte
    120 views2 pages
    The document discusses three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to labor and employment law: 1) The first case examines whether evidence obtained without governmental interference can be used against a defendant, finding that evidence discovered by private persons without state involvement does not violate constitutional protections. 2) The second case looks at whether an employee was validly dismissed for incompetence when the employer failed to follow due process requirements of two notices, determining the notices provided were too general and did not properly notify of impending dismissal. 3) The third case analyzes if employees were validly dismissed due to business closure even though the employer did not notify the Department of Labor, deciding notice is required except if an employee consented to retrenchment or

    Original Description:

    Some Labor Relations Law jurisprudence

    Original Title

    Labor Law Case digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to labor and employment law: 1) The first case examines whether evidence obtained without governmental interference can be used against a defendant, finding that evidence discovered by private persons without state involvement does not violate constitutional protections. 2) The second case looks at whether an employee was validly dismissed for incompetence when the employer failed to follow due process requirements of two notices, determining the notices provided were too general and did not properly notify of impending dismissal. 3) The third case analyzes if employees were validly dismissed due to business closure even though the employer did not notify the Department of Labor, deciding notice is required except if an employee consented to retrenchment or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    120 views2 pages

    Labor Law Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sarte
    The document discusses three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to labor and employment law: 1) The first case examines whether evidence obtained without governmental interference can be used against a defendant, finding that evidence discovered by private persons without state involvement does not violate constitutional protections. 2) The second case looks at whether an employee was validly dismissed for incompetence when the employer failed to follow due process requirements of two notices, determining the notices provided were too general and did not properly notify of impending dismissal. 3) The third case analyzes if employees were validly dismissed due to business closure even though the employer did not notify the Department of Labor, deciding notice is required except if an employee consented to retrenchment or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    81561 January 18, 1991

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee


    vs.
    ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.

    Issue/s:

    whether or not the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of the
    appellant’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication
    (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore it should be held inadmissible in evidence.

    Held:

    No. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily
    discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention
    and participation of State authorities. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
    guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The contraband in the case at bar
    having come into possession of the Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights
    against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be
    admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.

    G.R. No. 166363 August 15, 2006

    SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., and J.P. SAMARTZSIS MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO.,
    S.A., Petitioners,
    vs.
    JERRY MAGUAD and PORFERIO CEUDADANO, Respondents.

    Issue:

    Whether or not there was a valid dismissal for employee respondents due to incompetence
    notwithstanding the alleged failure of the employer-petitioner to comply substantially with the two-
    notice requirement.

    Held:

    No. There are two requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal: the
    dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and the employee must be afforded due process. Even if
    there is a valid ground in dismissing the respondents, the petitioners cannot just dismiss them outright.
    The petitioners must also comply with the second requisite, which is, to afford the respondents due
    process. The warning notices given by the petitioners to the respondents cannot be deemed as
    substantial compliance with the two-notice requirement since these warning notices did not specify in
    detail the particular acts or omissions committed by the respondents which showed their incompetence.
    Such notices were stated in a general manner. It was never mentioned therein that the petitioners
    would dismiss the respondents. In the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the petitioners failed to
    comply with the second requisite in effecting a valid dismissal, which is to afford the respondents due
    process.

    G.R. No. 157133 January 30, 2006

    BUSINESS SERVICES OF THE FUTURE TODAY, INC. and RAMON F. ALLADO, Petitioners,
    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, GILBERT C. VERUASA and MA. CELESTINA A.
    VERUASA, Respondents.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the respondents were validly dismissed on the ground of the closure of the business
    since the requirement of filing of written notice of closure of business with the Department of Labor and
    Employment is not applicable and unnecessary in the case of respondents because they were
    stockholders and managers of petitioner corporation who took part in the decision to close the business.

    Held:
    Yes. Notice of closure to the DOLE is mandatory except when the employee consented to his
    retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operation. The evidence shows that Gilbert Veruasa did
    not consent to his dismissal. Although only his correspondences with the petitioners suggest that he was
    a stockholder of BSFTI, there is no showing that he participated in the alleged stockholders’ meeting
    where the company’s closure was discussed. For the cessation of business operations due to serious
    business losses or financial reverses to be valid, the employer must give the employee and the DOLE
    written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. However in Agabon v. National Labor
    Relations Commission, the Court ruled that where the dismissal is for an authorized cause, the lack of
    statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.

    G.R. No. 126937 J une 16, 2000

    AURELIO FUERTE and DANILO LEONARDO, petitioners,


    vs.
    RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY and ROGELIO I. RALAYA, as Chairman and
    Members of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and
    REYNALDO'S MARKETING and/or REYNALDO PADUA,

    You might also like