Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Jo Cinema v. NLRC (June 28, 2001)



FACTS:
Petitioner is in the movie business, Respondent was a theater porter. A memo was issued saying that no check should be enchased but respondent, for her friend, enchased without permission 4 checks with the ticket seller. The checks bounced so she was asked to show cause why she shouldn’t be disciplined but she didn’t answer so she was preventively filed a case for illegal dismissal because when she was suspended, she was allegedly terminated also. The LA and NLRC ruled that there was illegal dismissal or at least constructive dismissal and ordered separation pay and full back wages. The LA ruled that since the company insisted on making or pay the amount she couldn’t come back to work even if she wanted to. The NLRC ruled that even though respondent had no cause of action against the company as she was merely placed on preventive suspension she was still illegally dismissed.



ISSUE: W/N respondent was illegally dismissed.


HELD: It is clear that respondent was not dismissed but merely placed under preventive suspension. It cannot be construed as dismissal since the cessation from work is only temporary. She could have been dismissed because a formal investigation was still being conducted. She even attended the investigation admitted the allegations. If she was indeed dismissed the investigation wouldn’t have continued employment is rendered impossible unreasonable as it was attributed to her. As she was not illegally dismissed, separation pay and back wages are not in order.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Pinoy Bloggers Society (PBS) PinoyBlogoSphere.com

View My Stats

Personal - Top Blogs Philippines
My BlogCatalog BlogRank
Add to Technorati Favorites
Personal Business Directory - BTS Local
blogarama - the blog directory
Personal Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
 

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com