Showing posts with label Del Castillo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Del Castillo. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Meatworld International, Inc. v. Hechanova

G.R. No. 208053
October 18, 2017

“In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action were for valid and legitimate grounds.”

Respondent was illegally dismissed.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s termination was for a valid or authorized cause. This rule, however, presupposes that the employee was dismissed from service.

The Court finds that although there was no actual dismissal, the failure of petitioner to assign respondent to a specific branch without any justifiable reason constituted illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is defined as a “cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible , unreasonable, or unlikely.” Similarly, there is constructive dismissal “when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment. Simply put, it is a “dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.”

While the Court recognizes that the management has the discretion and prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which includes the transfer of employees, work assignments, discipline, dismissal and recall of workers, the exercise of power is not absolute as “it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.” More important, “management prerogative may not be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker.

Did this post help you? Please leave a thumbs up or comment below.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

2014-2015 Significant Decisions

Del Castillo, J.

Civil Law

In LBP v. Oñate, the Court noted that Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, which took effect on July 1, 2013, embodied Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013 providing that in the absence of express stipulation between the parties, the rate of interest in loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments shall be 6% per annum. Hence, the Court held in this case that 12% annual interest for both the debited amount and undocumented withdrawals shall apply only up to June 30, 2013. Thereafter, or starting July 1, 2013, it ruled that the applicable rate of interest shall be 6% per annum compounded annually until fully paid. (GR No. 192371, January 15, 2014

In Spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos v. PNB, the Court ruled that any modification of stipulated interest must be mutually agreed upon; otherwise, it has no binding effect. Moreover, the Court said it cannot consider a stipulation granting a party the option to prepay the loan if said party is not agreeable to the arbitrary interest rates imposed. (GR No. 181045, July 2, 2014





Source:  JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015

People v Alapan

People v Alapan GR No. 199527, January 10, 2018 Martires, J.: Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly sta...