Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Labor 1st Assign

Labor 1st Assign

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Published by bebs Cacho

More info:

Published by: bebs Cacho on Jul 15, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CACHO, Klenzene O.Labor Law 11:00 – 4:00, SundayCase on Managemen !reroga"#e w$ere $e %m&loyer 'onA()*L+O O. %)-CO
 vs
*A)/*M +OOS -S/(-*/-O) C%)/%(.(. )o. 121213, anuary 50, 6007+AC/S:
-
Quantum Foods Center hired Arnulfo O. Endico (Endico) as FieldSupervisor of Davao City. He as later on transferred in Ce!u. Due toEndico"s achievements and contri!utions to Quantum Foods# he aspromoted as Area $ana%er of Ce!u.
-
Hoever# after fruitful years of employment# Quantum Foods asadversely a&ected !y economic slodon# hich compelled it tostreamline its operations throu%h the reduction of the company"scontractual merchandisers to save on operation cost.
-
 'hereafter# for some misfortunate events# Endico as immediatelyrelieved from service. Endico thereafter led a complaint forconstructive ille%al dismissal. Endico also prayed for the payment of separation pay# !aca%es# other monetary !enets# dama%es#attorney"s fees and recovery of the service vehicle.
-
 'he *a!or Ar!iter rendered a decision in favor of Endico.
-
Quantum Foods appealed to the +ational *a!or ,elations Commission(+*,C) hich a-rmed the *a!or Ar!iter"s decision ith modication.
-
Quantum Foods then led a etition for Certiorari !efore the Court of Appeals (CA) ho ruled in favor of Quantum Foods. 'he Court of Appeals ruled that Quantum Foods had yet to decide on theadministrative case hen Endico immediately led the complaint forconstructive dismissal. 'he CA concluded that Endico led thecomplaint in anticipation of hat he perceived to !e the nal outcomeof the administrative investi%ation.
-
Hence# this petition.
-SS*%:
 
-
/hether or not Endico as constructively dismissed.
H%L:
-
 0urisprudence reco%ni1es the e2ercise of mana%ement prero%atives.*a!or las also discoura%e interference ith an employer"s 3ud%mentin the conduct of its !usiness. For this reason# the Court often declinesto interfere in le%itimate !usiness decisions of employers. 'he la
 
must protect not only the elfare of employees# !ut also the ri%ht of employers.
-
4n the pursuit of its le%itimate !usiness interests# especially durin%adverse !usiness conditions# mana%ement has the prero%ative totransfer or assi%n employees from one o-ce or area of operation toanother 5 provided there is no demotion in ran or diminution of salary#!enets and other privile%es and the action is not motivated !ydiscrimination# !ad faith# or e&ected as a form of punishment ordemotion ithout su-cient cause. 'his privile%e is inherent in the ri%htof employers to control and mana%e their enterprises e&ectively. 'heri%ht of employees to security of tenure does not %ive them vestedri%hts to their positions to the e2tent of deprivin% mana%ement of itsprero%ative to chan%e their assi%nments or to transfer them.
 
-
$ana%erial prero%atives# hoever# are su!3ect to limitations provided!y la# collective !ar%ainin% a%reements# and %eneral principles of fairplay and 3ustice.
-
4n this case# the Court nds no reason to distur! the conclusion of theCA that there as no constructive dismissal. ,eassi%nments made !ymana%ement pendin% investi%ation of violations of company policiesand procedures alle%edly committed !y an employee fall ithin theam!it of mana%ement prero%ative. 'he decision of Quantum Foods totransfer Endico pendin% investi%ation as a valid e2ercise of mana%ement prero%ative to discipline its employees. 'he transfer#hile incidental to the char%es a%ainst Endico# as not meant as apenalty# !ut rather as a preventive measure to avoid further loss of sales and the destruction of Quantum Foods" ima%e and %oodill. 4tas not desi%ned to !e the culmination of the then on6%oin%administrative investi%ation a%ainst Endico.
 
-
+either as there any demotion in ran or any diminution of Endico"ssalary# privile%es and other !enets. Endico as !ein% transferred tothe head o-ce as area sales mana%er# the same position Endico heldin Ce!u. 'here as also no proof that the transfer involved adiminution of Endico"s salary# privile%es and other !enets.
-
$oreover# the Court nds that Quantum Foods# considerin% thedeclinin% sales and the loss of a ma3or account in Ce!u# as actin% inthe le%itimate pursuit of hat it considered its !est interest in decidin%to transfer Endico to the head o-ce.
-
/herefore# petition is denied.
Case on Consru8"on "n +a#or o9 Labor w$ere $e %m&loyee 'on%S/%( M. AS*)C-O)
vs.
)A/-O)AL LAO( (%LA/-O)S COMM-SS-O),Se8ond "#"s"on, MA-)- M%-CAL CL-)-C and (. '-L+(-O *CO.(. )o. 167567, uly 51, 6001
 
+AC/S:
-
On Au%ust 7889# Asuncion as employed as an accountant:!ooeeper!y the respondent# $a!ini $edical Clinic.
-
After the inspection conducted in the respondent"s company premisesfor a violation of the la!or standards for non6covera%e# on Au%ust788;# private respondent# $edical Director /ifrido 0uco issued amemorandum to petitioner char%in% her ith chronic a!senteeism#ha!itual tardiness# loiterin% and astin% of company time# %ettin%salary of an a!sent employee ithout acnoled%in% or si%nin% for it#and diso!edience and insu!ordination for continued refusal of si%nin%memos %iven to her.
-
etitioner as then re<uired to e2plain ithin = days hy she ill not!e terminated. etitioner su!mitted her response to the memo !ut asalso dismissed on %round of diso!edience of laful orders and failureto su!mit her reply in = days.
-
 'his prompted petitioner to le for a case of ille%al termination hichas 3ud%ed !y the *a!or Ar!iter to !e true.
-SS*%:
-
/hether or not the +*,C erred in ndin% that the petitioner asdismissed !y the private respondent for a 3ust or authori1ed cause>
H%L:
-
 'he petition is impressed ith merit.
-
4t !ears stressin% that a orer"s employment is property in theconstitutional sense. He cannot !e deprived of his or ithout dueprocess. 4n order for the dismissal to !e valid# not only must it !e!ased on 3ust cause supported !y clear and convincin% evidence# theemployee must also !e %iven an opportunity to !e heard and defendhimself. 4t is the employer ho has the !urden of provin% that thedismissal as ith 3ust or authori1ed cause. 'he failure of the employerto dischar%e this !urden means that the dismissal is not 3ustied andthat the employee is entitled to reinstatement and !aca%es.
-
4n the case at !ar# there is a paucity of evidence to esta!lish thechar%es of a!senteeism and tardiness. /e note that the employercompany su!mitted mere handritten listin% and computer print6outs. 'he handritten listin% as not si%ned !y the one ho made the same.As re%ards the print6outs# hile the listin% as computer %enerated#the entries of time and other annotations ere a%ain handritten andunsi%ned.
-
/e nd that the handritten listin% and unsi%ned computer print6outsere unauthenticated and# hence# unrelia!le. $ere self6servin%evidence of hich the listin% and print6outs are of that nature should!e re3ected as evidence ithout any rational pro!ative value even in

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->