Laws and Found

Manila Electric v. Quisumbing  G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000 Facts:  Members of the Private respondent union were dissatisfied with the terms of a CBA with petitioner. The parties in this case were ordered by the Sec. of Labor to execute a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) wherein.The CBA allowed for the increase in the wages of the employees concerned. The petitioner argues that if such increase were allowed, it would pass off such to the consumers. Issue: W/N matters of salary are part of management prerogative RULING: Yes. There is no need to consult the Secretary of Labor in cases involving contracting out for 6 months or more as it is part of management prerogative. However, a line must be drawn with respect to management prerogatives on business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the workers. Employers must see to it that that employees are properly informed of its decisions to attain harmonious labor relations and enlighten ...

International Harvester v. IAC Facts:  1. Private respondent Diosdado Joson was first employed as assistant attorney by the petitioner and was thereafter promoted to various positions until he became the GRO for Government Sales Department with a salary of P2,500. 2. After 17 years, the private respondent was informed of his transfer to Fleet Account Sales on the ground of redundancy caused by the phase out of his department. It was a lesser position with less salary and without allowances although there is commission. The petitioner refused to transfer which resulted to his termination. He then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner. Lower Court: Found the dismissal illegal and ordered the payment of damages Court of Appeals: Affirmed the decision. 3. Hence this appeal. Issue: W/N there was a valid ground for the reduction of personnel (due to redundancy) RULING: Yes, it is part of management prerogative to determine the need for ht exi...

St. Luke's Medical Center v. NLRC Facts: 1. The private respondent Maribel Santos worked as an X-Ray technician at the petitioner hospital (SLMC) but she does not possess  a certificate of registration as required under the newly passed Radiologic Act or RA 7431. Due to her non-compliance and her failure to pass the exams, she was separated. 2. The private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries and other monetary benefits. The Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioner to pay respondent separation pay and this was affirmed by both NLRC and the Court of Appeals, hence this petition. The petitioner contended that respondent dismissal was valid. Issue: Whether or not an employer can validly dismiss an employee based on her inability to secure a certification as required by the Board RULING: Yes, The petitioner is merely exercising its management prerogative and these rights are entitled respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. Th...