Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the challenged Orders of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby declared NULL and VOID. “Considering that, as borne out of the records, EMCO’s attempted retrenchment of the [respondents] was legally ineffective, EMCO is ordered to REINSTATE [respondents] with full backwages , inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of …
WHEREFORE , the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the challenged Orders of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby declared NULL and VOID. Considering that, as borne out of the records, EMCOs attempted retrenchment of the [respondents] was legally ineffective, EMCO is ordered to REINSTATE [respondents] with full backwages , inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement . Where reinstatement is no longer possible because the position they had previously filled are no longer in existence, EMCO shall pay backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the time their employment was terminated up to the time the decision herein becomes final, and, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one-months pay for every year of service including the putative period for which backwages are payable. In all these cases, the payments received by [respondents] and for which they executed quitclaims shall be deducted from the backwages and separation pay due to them. Costs against the [petitioners]. [5] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Facts The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the CA as follows: [Respondents], the retrenched employees of [petitioner] seek the review and reversal of the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) , dated February 11, 1997 and March 25, 1997, respectively. The first resolution dismissed [respondents] appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated July 24, 1996, which, in turn, dismissed [respondents] complaint against EMCO and the latters general manager, [petitioner] Jimmy N. Lim (Lim) , for illegal dismissal, damages and attorneys fees. The second resolution assailed by the [respondents] consists of the NLRCs denial of their motion for reconsideration of the earlier mentioned February 11, 1997 resolution. EMCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of wood processing, operating through its sawmill and plymill sections where [respondents] used to be assigned as regular workers. On January 20, 1993 and of March 2, 1993, EMCO, represented by Lim, informed the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) of its intention to retrench some of its workers. The intended retrenchment was grounded on purported financial difficulties occasioned by alleged lack of raw materials, frequent machinery breakdown, low market demand and expiration of permit to operate its sawmill department. A memorandum was thereafter issued by EMCO, addressed to all its foremen, section heads, supervisors and department heads, with the following instructions: 1) Retrench some of your workers based on the following guidelines: a) Old Age (58 years and above except positions that are really skilled); b) Performance (Attitude, Attendance,
SANGUILA, MELITA SANCHEZ, DORIE TINGCANG AND ELSA TUASTOMBAN, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, AND TRENDLINE DEPARTMENT STORE AND/OR EDUARDO YAP,PROPRIETOR.
G.R. No. 112923 -
CaseG.R. NO. 161217 - BLUCOR MINERALS CORPORATION AND DENNIS UY, VS. ALFREDO M. AMARILLA, WILFREDO C. ALDIANO AND GASPAR R. PARCON,[1]. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 161217 -
CaseG.R. No. 127718 -
G.R. No. 127718 -