Labor Law Archives - Bingbing Wanders

Labor Law•Law School Notes

Genuino v. NLRC (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION)

March 9, 2023 by Vala No Comments

G.R. Nos. 142732-33 December 4, 2007

FACTS:

In 1992, Genuino was employed by Citibank as Treasury Sales Division Head with the rank of Assistant Vice-President. Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her with “knowledge and/or involvement” in transactions “which were irregular or even fraudulent.” In the same letter, Genuino was informed she was under preventive suspension. Genuino demanded for a bill of particulars regarding the charges against him.

However the letters did not specify the extent of Genuino’s alleged knowledge and participation in the diversion of bank’s clients’ funds, manner of diversion, and amounts involved; the acts attributed to Genuino that conflicted with the bank’s interests; and the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregular transactions.

Genuino’s employment was terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1) serious misconduct, (2) willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against the bank.

Reading time: 3 min

Labor Law•Law School Notes

Luna vs. Allado Construction Co., Inc.

February 18, 2023 by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 175251. May 30, 2011

FACTS:

Luna filed a complaint before the Executive Labor Arbiter, alleging that he continuously rendered services as a warehouseman and a timekeeper in every construction project undertaken by Allado Construction. Sometime in 2001, he was given a travel order to proceed to [respondents’] main office in Davao City for reassignment. Upon arrival at the office, he was ordered to sign several sets of “Contract of Project Employment”. He refused to sign the said contracts. Because of his refusal, he was not given a reassignment or any other work.

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that petitioner applied for a leave of absence which was granted. Upon expiration of his leave, he was advised to report to the company’s project in Sarangani Province. However, he refused and claimed instead that he had been dismissed illegally.

Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint finding that he was deemed to have resigned but ordered Allado Construction to pay him the amount of P18,000.00 by way of financial assistance. Only respondents interposed an appeal with the NLRC, purely for the purpose of questioning the validity of the grant of financial assistance made by the Labor Arbiter.

Reading time: 3 min

Labor Law•Law School Notes

Innodata Philippines, Inc. vs. Quejada-Lopez

August 20, 2022 by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 162839. October 12, 2006

FACTS:

Natividad and Quejada’s employment were terminated by Innodata since the employment contract had expired which is effective for a fixed period of one (1) year. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages. Claiming that their job was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company which is data processing/conversion and that their employment is regular pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code.

Petitioner contends that the regularity of the employment of respondents does not depend on whether their task may be necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. It argues that the use of fixed-term employment contracts has long been recognized by this Court.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a judgment in favor of the complainants – Natividad and Quejada to have been illegally dismissed by Innodata and ordered to reinstate them to their former position without loss of seniority rights, and to pay them backwages computed from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the date of the decision.

Reading time: 2 min

Labor Law

Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission

August 19, 2022 by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004

FACTS:

Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 19922 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. They asserted that they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give them assignments unless they agreed to work on a “pakyaw” basis. They did not agree on this arrangement because it would mean losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS) members. They also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

The private respondent maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. The petitioners are sent two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. They also talk to Agabon by telephone to inform them of new assignment however did not report since they subcontracted for an installation work for another company.

Reading time: 6 min

Page 1 of 1312 3 4 »10...Last »

Genuino v. NLRC (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION)

FACTS:

Luna vs. Allado Construction Co., Inc.

FACTS:

Innodata Philippines, Inc. vs. Quejada-Lopez

FACTS:

Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission

FACTS:

Recent Posts

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILAB INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent;

Domestic Petroleum Retailer Corp. v. Manila International Airport Authority;

Simundac-Keppel v. Keppel

Categories

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Popular Posts

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILAB INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent;

M Boutique by The Manila Hotel at 50% off

NAIA Terminal 3 Alternate Parking

Checking Your GrabTaxi Total Expense

Tags

Search