In this case, find out why an illegal dismissal complaint cannot be classified like an ordinary civil action insofar as the effect of death of any of the parties is concerned.
When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the workers are independent contractors rather than regular employees.
In its appeal, the employer in this case asserted that it was neither given summons relating to the employee’s amended complaint, nor notified of the scheduled hearings before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. Should it be allowed to present countervailing evidence on appeal?
The complainant presented pay slips and trip itineraries to support his assertion that he was an employee of the company. Were these sufficient to declare the company as his employer?
In one case, the Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled that the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for a post-employment examination under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract does not apply when the seafarer is repatriated due to expiration of his employment contract. Was this ruling sustained by the Supreme Court?
The employer asserted that its business was slowing down and that it dismissed the complainant on the ground of redundancy. Was the complainant’s dismissal found valid?
Why was the dismissal of this employee declared to be illegal despite proof of her violation of company policy?
The NLRC and the CA found that the requirements of procedural due process in the employee’s dismissal were not complied with. Will the quitclaim executed by the employee bar his entitlement to nominal damages?
Can an employer’s service contract with another company be proof of an employee’s project employment status?
In this case, why was constructive dismissal not declared by the Supreme Court?
