Case Digest (G.R. No. 71632-33)
Facts:
- Case: Metro Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
- Private respondents: Manuel B. Arbo, Estanislao M. Infante, Joselito B. Jimeno, Eleuterio A. Callenga, and Santiago L. Fontanilla
- Petitioner: Metro Port Service, Inc.
- Date: July 20, 1983
- Private respondents were employees of the petitioner
- Private respondents were dismissed from their employment
- Petitioner claimed dismissal was justified due to private respondents' conspiracy to commit pilferage
- Dismissal was not preceded by a formal investigation
- Private respondents were not given the opportunity to explain their side
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Supreme Court ruled in favor of the private respondents
- Dismissal of private respondents was illegal
- Dismissal should be done only after notice and formal investigation have been accorded to the employee
- Private respondents were not given the opportunity to defend themselves
- Employer's right ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Decision based on provisions of the Labor Code, particularly Article 283 and Rule XIV of the Rules implementing the Labor Code
- Termination of employment must be preceded by notice and formal investigation
- Employer's right to dismiss an employee should not be exercised oppressively and abusively
- Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 71632-33)
Facts:
The case of Metro Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission involves the illegal dismissal of employees by Metro Port Service, Inc. The employees, namely Manuel B. Arbo, Estanislao M. Infante, Joselito B. Jimeno, Eleuterio A. Callenga, and Santiago L. Fontanilla, filed unfair labor practice complaints against the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether or not the employees were illegally dismissed from their employment.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the employees was illegal due to the lack of notice, formal investigation, and substantiation of claims. The court emphasized that under ...