employer’s records to determine and compel compliance with labor
standard laws. The exercise of the said power by the Secretary or hisduly authorized representatives is exclusive to cases where employer-employee relationship still exists. Thus, in cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employeeand the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonancewith justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shoppingwhen the remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arosewas to file separate cases before different
Yes, it must be stressed that labor tribunals are not bound by technicalrules and the Court would sustain the expedient disposition of cases solong as the parties are not denied due process. Indeed, no such denialexists because it had all the opportunities to present evidence before thelabor tribunals below, the Court of Appeals, and even before this Court,but chose not to do so for reasons which will not warrant the sacrifice of substantial justice over technicalities.
Yes, the respondents passed the “four
fold test” on em
ployer-employeerelations, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and(4) the power to control the employee.
Yes. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that thedismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarilymean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. In this case,the petitioner therefore failed to discharge its burden, hence, respondentswere correctly declared to have been illegally dismissed.
Harborview Restaurant v. Labro
, G. R. No. 168273, April 30, 2009FACTS:
Respondent was a cook at the Harborview Restaurant until one day, hewas informed by his co-employee as confirmed by the chief-cook and
respondent’s brother who is an over
-all supervisor at the restaurant thathe indeed terminated because he allegedly steal a plastic bag of meatfrom the restaurant and gave it to the supplier. Respondent denied theaccusation.
On the following week, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissalwith NLRC.
Petitioner argued that the respondent refused to go back into his workdespite the letter sent to him to report, and if not, he would be deemed tohave abandoned his work and be terminated. Thus, he abandoned hiswork. But respondent denied having received such letter from thepetitioner.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, however, NLRC reversedthe ruling and held that there was no termination and illegal dismissal tospeak of, that he abandoned his work.
On the petition file before the CA, in applying the case of Ranara
,the appellate court held that in fact petitioner did dismiss respondent anddid not observe due process in dismissing him.
Petitioner now sought for review of the CA ruling.