The employer claims to have informed the seafarer of his disability rating. Learn why the Supreme Court still awarded the seafarer permanent total disability benefits.
Illegal Dismissal was not among the causes of action listed in the employee’s complaint filed before the NLRC. Will such absence automatically preclude the labor tribunals from resolving the same?
The employer asserted that the seafarer failed to follow the third doctor referral procedure under the POEA SEC. Did the Supreme Court consider the assertion meritorious?
The employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal.
The instructor in this case completed her probationary period. Learn why the Court did not consider her as a permanent employee.
Bus drivers and conductors filed a complaint against their employer for money claims before the Office of the Labor Arbiter and alleged that the latter failed to comply with Department Order No. 118, Series of 2012. Does the Office of the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the case?
Upon being informed that they will be dismissed from employment, the employees tendered their resignation. Will an assertion of involuntariness in their resignation have merit?
Find out why this employee was declared to have been illegally dismissed from employment even when witnesses of the employer testified to the employee’s violation of company rules.
The employee in this case claimed that the employer dismissed him from employment after he refused to sign a document mentioning offenses he did not commit. Did his assertion of constructive dismissal have merit?
The National Labor Relations Commission modified the computation of reliefs of backwages and separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in view of her rejection of an alleged offer of reinstatement by the employer. Was this modification sustained by the Supreme Court?
