The court has ruled in the case of Mindanao Times Corporation vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 183417, February 5, 2010, that bank deposit does not comply with the appeal bond requirement under Section 6, Rule 6, of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, viz.: Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the […]

, , ,

Significance of the Case

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court, citing Brent case and Coyoca case, ruled that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time.

Significance of the Case

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that backwages due an employee on account of his illegal dismissal should not be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal.

Significance of the Case

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that Labor officials should use every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

Significance of the Case

In this case, the Supreme Court:

  1. Discussed the requirements for termination of employment based on Article 284 of the Labor Code (“Disease as ground for termination”); and
  2. Held that voluntary acceptance of separation pay does not amount to waiver of right to ask for reinstatement.

Significance of the Case

In this case, the Supreme Court explained the legislative intendment or purpose behind Article 236 (g) of the Labor Code, and reiterated the rule that payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is not sanctioned under the provision of the said article.