[G.R. No. 117040.

May 4, 2000]
RUBEN SERRANO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE, respondents.

FACTS Respondent Isetann Department Store dismissed petitioner due to

retrenchment. However instead of giving the required 30 day notice,
respondents gave 30 days pay arguing that this is effective notice. They
made the dismissed employees sign quitclaims so that there would be no
more claims from them. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the employees were
illegally dismissed because they were not afforded due process because they
failed to prove retrenchment due to losses. The NLRC reversed the ruling
saying that the dismissal was justified because it was due to redundancy and
not retrenchment. The NLRC however did not rule on whether the 30 day pay
was a sufficient substitute for the 30 day notice. The petitioner argues further
that they should be given the chance to present his side.

ISSUE Whether or not the 30 days pay is sufficient replacement for 30 day
notice.

HELD: The Court ruled that since the dismissal is due to an authorized cause
only notice is required and that the employee has no right to present his side.
The 30 day notice is needed in order to afford the employee enough time to
look for work and to give the DOLE time to look into the validity of the
authorized cause. 30 days pay is not enough to replace the notice
requirement because it would not serve the purpose of the notice.
Additionally, backwages are not a severe punishment because it is a
consequence of the employers failure to give notice and due process and the
employee is therefore not deemed terminated so he should be compensated
for that period.

CHINA BANK VS. NLRC

FACTS:
Before the Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by China Banking
Corporation seeking the reversal of the Decision[1]dated July 19, 2002 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57365, remanding to the Labor Arbiter for
further hearings the complaint for payment of separation pay, mid-yearbonus,
profit share and damages filed by respondent Mariano M. Borromeo against the
petitioner Bank. Likewise, sought to be reversed is the appellate courts

Resolution dated January 6, 2003, denying the petitioner Banks motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:

RULING:
The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorized neither oppression nor selfdestruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must
be entitled to recognition and respect
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 19, 2002 of the
Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated January 6, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No.
57365 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Resolution dated October 20, 1999 of
the NLRC, affirming the Decision dated February 26, 1999 of the Labor Arbiter, is
REINSTATED.
HYATT TAXI VS. NLRC
FACTS:

ISSUE:
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding Respondent Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc., guilty of illegal
constructive dismissal;
2. Finding Respondents Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc., and Hyatt Taxi
Employees Association and/or Jaime Dublin jointly and severally liable for
illegal preventive suspension;
2. Ordering Respondents Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc., and Hyatt Taxi
Employees Association and/or Jaime Dublin jointly and severally liable to
pay a month's wage due to complainants illegal preventive suspension in
the amount of P12,000.00;
3. Ordering Respondents Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc., to pay complainant's
full backwages from the time of his dismissal till actual reinstatement in
the amount of P276,000.00 (computed till promulgation only);
4. Ordering Respondents Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. to reinstate
complainant to his former position as taxi driver without loss of seniority
rights and privileges immediately upon acknowledgment of this resolution;
5. Ordering Respondent Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. to pay 10% attorney's
fees based on the total judgment award on the illegal dismissal aspect;
6. Ordering the Dismissal of the complaint for damages for lack of merit.

RULING:

In acting on the motion for reconsideration of petitioner, the NLRC gave

credence to petitioners contention that petitioners failure to reinstate
respondent to his job was merely a result of a miscommunication between
the two parties since petitioner was willing to take back respondent as its
employee. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
December 27, 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED.

UNION SAFETY VS. NLRC

FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals of October 18, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63577 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against petitioners