1. ALFREDO F. LAY A, JR., Petitioner vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, prevailing norms of conduct, which, as stated in Leus, refer to those
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK and RICARDO A. BALBIDO,
JR., Respondents
An employee in the private sector who did not expressly agree to
the terms of an early retirement plan cannot be separated from the service
before he reaches the age of 65 years. The employer who retires the
employee prematurely is guilty of illegal dismissal, and is liable to pay his
back wages and to reinstate him without loss of seniority and other benefits,
unless the employee has meanwhile reached the mandatory retirement age
under the Labor Code, in which case he is entitled to separation pay
pursuant to the terms of the plan, with legal interest on the back wages and
separation pay reckoned from the finality of the decision.
2. ENCHANTED KINGDOM, INC., Petitioner, v. MIGUEL J.
VERZO, Respondent.
If the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the
reasonable standards on which his regularization would be based at the time
of the engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular
employee. Thus, in all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall
make known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as
a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are
made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular
employee.
When dealing with a probationary employee, the employer is
made to comply with two (2) requirements:
1. the employer must communicate the regularization standards to
the probationary employee; and
2. the employer must make such communication at the time of the
probationary employee’s engagement. If the employer fails to
comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not
a probationary employee.
3. MARIA CARMELA P. UMALI, Petitioner, v. HOBBYWING
SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondent.
As a general rule an employee who has suffered to work for more
than the legal period of 6 months of probationary period, is by operation of
law becomes a regular employee. As an exception, if an extension is agreed
upon by the parties to an employment contract. Thus, an employment
contract extending the period of probationary status executed beyond the
agreed period is not valid.
The employer has the burden of proof to show that the extension
was valid and agreed upon by the parties.
4. CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS, Petitioner, vs. ST.
SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE WESTGROVE and/or SR. EDNA
QUIAMBAO, OSB, Respondents
Pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct
if she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other.
A female teacher working as a non-teaching staff in a sectarian school
cannot be dismissed on grounds of premarital sexual relations even if it
resulted in her getting pregnant.
5. CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, vs. BRENT
HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.
Jurisprudence has set the standard of morality with which an act
should be gauged - it is public and secular, not religious. Whether a conduct
is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the
conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions
upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. That a
particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a sectarian
institution is not sufficient reason to qualify an act as immoral unless it,
likewise, does not conform to public and secular standards. More
importantly, there must be substantial evidence to establish that premarital
sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or
immoral. Pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct
if she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other.
6. COPY CENTRAL DIGITAL COPY SOLUTION and/or
VIRGILIO MONTANO, Petitioners, vs. MARILYN
DOMRIQUE and CARINA LEAÑO, Respondents.
A criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for
employment termination. Otherwise stated, an employee’s acquittal in a
criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable
doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of
acts inimical to the employer’s interests. In the reverse, the finding of
probable cause is not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the
labor tribunals. In other words, whichever way the public prosecutor
disposes of a complaint, the finding does not bind the labor tribunal.
7. ICT MARKETING SERVICES, INC. (now known as SYKES
MARKETING SERVICES, INC.), Petitioner, vs. MARIPHIL
L. SALES, Respondent.
Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following
jurisprudential guidelines:
(a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another of
equivalent rank, level or salary without break in the service or a lateral
movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or salary;
(b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an
employee for legitimate business purposes;
(c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by
discrimination or bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a
demotion without sufficient cause;
(d) the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.
8. INNODATA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, INC., Petitioner
vs. SOCORRO D'MARIE T. INTING, ISMAEL R. GARAYGAY, EDSON
S. SOLIS, MICHAEL A. REBATO, JAMES HORACE BALONDA,
STEPHEN C. OLINGAY, DENNIS C. RIZON, JUNETH A. RENTUMA,
HERNAN ED NOEL I. DE LEON, JR., JESS VINCENT A. DELA PENA,
RONAN V. ALAMILLO, ENNOH CHENTIS R. FERNANDEZ, FRITZ J.
SEMBRINO, DAX MATTHEW M. QUIJANO, RODOLFO M. VASQUEZ,
MA. NAZELLE B. MIRALLES, MICHAEL RAY B. MOLDE, WENDELL B.
QUIBAN, ALDRIN O. TORRENTIRA, and CARL HERMES CARSKIT,
Respondents
The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by
law and not by what the parties say it should be. Project employment
contracts, which fix the employment for a specific project or undertaking,
are valid under the law. But project employment contracts are not lopsided
agreements in favor of only one party.