Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Case Digests Labor Law: Serrano V NLRC (G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    bertokon
    1. The case involved a security checker who was terminated without notice as part of a cost-cutting measure that phased out the security section. 2. The NLRC ruled that the phase-out was a legitimate business decision but that failing to provide written notice violated the employee's rights. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the Wenphil doctrine that a lack of due process only warrants back wages, not reinstatement, if termination was for a valid cause. For terminations under Article 283, lack of notice only makes the termination ineffectual, not a due process violation. 4. If termination was without cause, reinstatement and back wages are required. With cause, back wages are still due until the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digests Labor Law: Serrano V NLRC (G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    bertokon
    20 views1 page
    1. The case involved a security checker who was terminated without notice as part of a cost-cutting measure that phased out the security section. 2. The NLRC ruled that the phase-out was a legitimate business decision but that failing to provide written notice violated the employee's rights. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the Wenphil doctrine that a lack of due process only warrants back wages, not reinstatement, if termination was for a valid cause. For terminations under Article 283, lack of notice only makes the termination ineffectual, not a due process violation. 4. If termination was without cause, reinstatement and back wages are required. With cause, back wages are still due until the

    Original Title

    berto

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a security checker who was terminated without notice as part of a cost-cutting measure that phased out the security section. 2. The NLRC ruled that the phase-out was a legitimate business decision but that failing to provide written notice violated the employee's rights. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the Wenphil doctrine that a lack of due process only warrants back wages, not reinstatement, if termination was for a valid cause. For terminations under Article 283, lack of notice only makes the termination ineffectual, not a due process violation. 4. If termination was without cause, reinstatement and back wages are required. With cause, back wages are still due until the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    20 views1 page

    Case Digests Labor Law: Serrano V NLRC (G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    bertokon
    1. The case involved a security checker who was terminated without notice as part of a cost-cutting measure that phased out the security section. 2. The NLRC ruled that the phase-out was a legitimate business decision but that failing to provide written notice violated the employee's rights. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the Wenphil doctrine that a lack of due process only warrants back wages, not reinstatement, if termination was for a valid cause. For terminations under Article 283, lack of notice only makes the termination ineffectual, not a due process violation. 4. If termination was without cause, reinstatement and back wages are required. With cause, back wages are still due until the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Serrano v NLRC [G.R. No.

    117040, January 27, 2000] Thursday, January 22, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Labor Law FACTS: Petitioner was hired by the Respondent IsetannDepartment Store as a security checker to apprehend shoplifters. As a cost-cutting measure, private respondent decided to phase out itssecurity section engage the services of an independent security agency. Petitioner was then terminated prompting him to file acomplaint for illegal dismissal. NLRC ordered petitioner to be given separation pay holding that the phase-out of the security section was a legitimate business decision. However, respondent was denied the right to be given written notice before termination of his employment. ISSUE: What is the effect of violation of the notice requirement when termination is based on an authorized cause? HELD: The Wenphil doctrine stated that it was unjust to require an employer to reinstate an employee if, although termination is made with cause, if due process was not satisfied. The remedy was to order the payment to the employees of full backwages from the time of hisdismissal until the court finds that the dismissal was for a just cause. But his dismissal must be upheld and he should not be reinstated. This is because the dismissal is ineffectual. In termination of employment under Art. 283, the violation of notice requirements is not a denial of due process as the purpose is not to afford the employee an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him for there is none. The purpose is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE to determine whether economic causes do exist justifying the termination of his employment. With respect to Art. 283, the employers failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute a denial of due process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which makes the termination of employment merely ineffectual. If the employees separation is without cause, instead of being given separation pay, he should be reinstated. In either case, whether he is reinstated or given separation pay, he should be paid full backwages if he has been laid off without written notice at least 30 days in advance. With respect to dismissals under 282, if he was dismissed for any of the just causes in 282, he should not be reinstated. However, he must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination is for a just cause because the failure to hear him renders the termination of his employment without legal effect

    You might also like