Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Hyatt Taxi Services Vs Catinoy

    Uploaded by

    Athena Santos
    Two union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, fought at the union office in violation of company rules. The union board suspended them indefinitely and requested their employer, Hyatt Taxi Services, to enforce the suspensions. Hyatt suspended the officers for 30 days. Catinoy filed a complaint for illegal suspension after not being allowed to return to work after 30 days, which was amended to include constructive dismissal. The labor arbiter found Hyatt guilty, which was affirmed by the NLRC but without backpay, then reinstated by the CA. The key issue was whether Catinoy was constructively dismissed, which the CA affirmed, as a suspension beyond 30 days amounts to constructive dismissal.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hyatt Taxi Services Vs Catinoy

    Uploaded by

    Athena Santos
    138 views1 page
    Two union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, fought at the union office in violation of company rules. The union board suspended them indefinitely and requested their employer, Hyatt Taxi Services, to enforce the suspensions. Hyatt suspended the officers for 30 days. Catinoy filed a complaint for illegal suspension after not being allowed to return to work after 30 days, which was amended to include constructive dismissal. The labor arbiter found Hyatt guilty, which was affirmed by the NLRC but without backpay, then reinstated by the CA. The key issue was whether Catinoy was constructively dismissed, which the CA affirmed, as a suspension beyond 30 days amounts to constructive dismissal.

    Original Description:

    Labor Case

    Original Title

    Hyatt Taxi Services vs Catinoy

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Two union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, fought at the union office in violation of company rules. The union board suspended them indefinitely and requested their employer, Hyatt Taxi Services, to enforce the suspensions. Hyatt suspended the officers for 30 days. Catinoy filed a complaint for illegal suspension after not being allowed to return to work after 30 days, which was amended to include constructive dismissal. The labor arbiter found Hyatt guilty, which was affirmed by the NLRC but without backpay, then reinstated by the CA. The key issue was whether Catinoy was constructively dismissed, which the CA affirmed, as a suspension beyond 30 days amounts to constructive dismissal.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views1 page

    Hyatt Taxi Services Vs Catinoy

    Uploaded by

    Athena Santos
    Two union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, fought at the union office in violation of company rules. The union board suspended them indefinitely and requested their employer, Hyatt Taxi Services, to enforce the suspensions. Hyatt suspended the officers for 30 days. Catinoy filed a complaint for illegal suspension after not being allowed to return to work after 30 days, which was amended to include constructive dismissal. The labor arbiter found Hyatt guilty, which was affirmed by the NLRC but without backpay, then reinstated by the CA. The key issue was whether Catinoy was constructively dismissed, which the CA affirmed, as a suspension beyond 30 days amounts to constructive dismissal.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc VS Catinoy FACTS: 2 union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, had a fight inside the

    union office, an act that violates company rules and union by-laws. The union executive board decided to place them on indefinite suspension and requested thecompany, Hyatt Taxi Services Inc., to implement it. The company place the 2 on preventive suspension for 30 days Catinoy, aggrieved by the preventive suspension since he was not the aggressor, filed a complaint for illegal suspension. After the lapse of 30 days, he reported to work but was not allowed to resume his duties. He amended his complaint to include constructive dismissal LA: found the Hyatt taxi to be guilty of illegal preventive suspension and illegal constructive dismissal Hyatt and the union appealed to the NLRC. NLRC: affirmed LA.. HOWEVER, upon MFR, the NLRC deleted the award of backwages because there was no concrete showing that the complainant was constructively dismissed CA: reinstated the LAs decision. Issue: Whether the private respondent was constructively dismissed HELD: YES. CA affirmed. Preventive suspension beyond 30 days amounts to constructive dismissal. It shows that

    respondent was not taken back by petitioner Hyatt after the 30- day suspension period. Clearly, constructive dismissal had already set in when the suspension went beyond the maximum period allowed by law.

    You might also like