A resigning employee may be held accountable for the payment of an “employment bond” in accordance with the contractual obligations stipulated within the employment agreement. Such liability emanates from the breach of the minimum employment period clause delineated therein. (Comscenre Pidls, Inc. vs. Camille Rocio, G.R. No. 222212, January 22, 2020)
The employee’s signing of the employment contract more than two months after the project had commenced logically implies that he was not apprised of his status as a project-based employee when he was engaged.
Employers who assert that a worker is a project-based employee must be substantiate that the duration and scope of employment were explicitly determined at the time of engagement.
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. (Article 1756, New Civil Code of the Philippines)
A common carrier is engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering their services to the public. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Napoleon Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016)
The fact that an employee was deprived of office space, was not given further work assignment and was not paid her salaries until she was left with no choice but stop reporting for work all combine to make out a clear case of constructive dismissal. (Tan Brothers vs. Escudero, G.R. No. 188711, July 8, 2013)
“An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.” (Article 294, Labor Code)
A contract of carriage not only establishes a business relationship but also imposes public duties on the carrier. The negligence or malfeasance of carrier employees can lead to liability for damages. However, common carriers have avenues to defend themselves against such claims.
All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor or labor.
An illegally dismissed employee is not required to return the wages he received during his reinstatement prior to the reversal of the labor arbiter’s decision.
The decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. (Article 229, Labor Code)
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines)
