Although illegal dismissal is a violation of the Labor Code, it is not the “offense” contemplated in Article 305 [formerly Article 290] of the Labor Code. [Arriola vs. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., G.R. No. 175689. August 13, 2014]
Article 305 refers to illegal acts penalized under the Labor Code, including committing any of the prohibited activities during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor practices, and illegal recruitment activities. The three-year prescriptive period under Article 305, therefore, does not apply to [...]
One of the usual ways to prove employer-employee relationship is the presentation of employee ID. However, there can be an instance where an ID card bearing the label “Employee Name” may not be competent to prove employment relationship.
In a dispute over the existence of employer-employee relationship, the Court examines the circumstances surrounding the parties or the complainant and the respondents. The rule in a claim of existence of employer-employee relationship is that the claimant has the burden of [...]
While the Labor Arbiter (LA) has no jurisdiction over dispute that does not arise from employer-employee relationship, the determination of whether such relationship exists lies with the LA also.
In the case of Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. vs. Gison (G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011), the Supreme Court (SC) held that well-entrenched is the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the findings thereon by the Labor Arbiter and [...]
Venue in labor cases means the place, city, or location where the case should be filed. This is governed by the rules on venue under Rule IV of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.
All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner.
For purposes of venue, the workplace shall be understood as the place or locality [...]
In case of dismissals, directors and officers of corporations may only be held solidarily liable with the corporation if they acted in bad faith or with malice.
In Mandaue Dinghow Dimsum House, Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission[ 571 Phil. 108 (2008)], the Supreme Court (SC) held that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to [...]
By Atty Elvin Labor Law
atty. elvin, bad faith, corporate officers, labor, labor case, Labor Code, labor dispute, labor law, malice, separate and distinct, solidary liability
Resignation is provided under Art. 300 of the Labor Code. There is nothing in such article that mandates the payment of separation pay to resigned employee.
In a case of Italkarat 18, Inc. vs. Gerasmio, (G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020), the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, the law does not require employers to pay employees that have resigned any separation pay, unless there is a contract that provides otherwise or there exists a company practice [...]
Usually, constructive dismissal involves demotion in rank or diminution in pay. However, there could be constructive dismissal even though on paper there was no demotion in title or diminution in pay.
To give a conceptual view, constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because “continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.” (Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Galang, G.R. No. 150092, September 27, 2002.)
There is [...]
By Atty Elvin Labor Law
constructive dismissal, demotion, demotion in rank, diminution in pay, employee, employer, Illegal dismissal, Just Cause, Labor Code, labor dispute, labor law, termination
Welcome to LVS Rich Publishing!
error: Content is protected !!