Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs. ROLANDO ADANA, Et Al. G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    The Mayon Hotel & Restaurant hired 16 employees but suspended operations in March 1997 when their lease expired. While operations temporarily continued elsewhere, 9 employees were retained and the other 16 were not recalled to work. The 16 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The court held that the respondents were illegally dismissed as the cessation of employment exceeded 6 months, making the layoff permanent under Article 286 of the Labor Code. As over 3 years had passed since the supposed temporary layoff and the new premises were complete, the employment relationships had ceased, constituting illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs. ROLANDO ADANA, Et Al. G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    43 views1 page
    The Mayon Hotel & Restaurant hired 16 employees but suspended operations in March 1997 when their lease expired. While operations temporarily continued elsewhere, 9 employees were retained and the other 16 were not recalled to work. The 16 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The court held that the respondents were illegally dismissed as the cessation of employment exceeded 6 months, making the layoff permanent under Article 286 of the Labor Code. As over 3 years had passed since the supposed temporary layoff and the new premises were complete, the employment relationships had ceased, constituting illegal dismissal.

    Original Description:

    LABOR 2 CASES

    Original Title

    MAYON HOTEL VS ADANA 05-16-2005

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Mayon Hotel & Restaurant hired 16 employees but suspended operations in March 1997 when their lease expired. While operations temporarily continued elsewhere, 9 employees were retained and the other 16 were not recalled to work. The 16 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The court held that the respondents were illegally dismissed as the cessation of employment exceeded 6 months, making the layoff permanent under Article 286 of the Labor Code. As over 3 years had passed since the supposed temporary layoff and the new premises were complete, the employment relationships had ceased, constituting illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs. ROLANDO ADANA, Et Al. G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Daniel Galzote
    The Mayon Hotel & Restaurant hired 16 employees but suspended operations in March 1997 when their lease expired. While operations temporarily continued elsewhere, 9 employees were retained and the other 16 were not recalled to work. The 16 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The court held that the respondents were illegally dismissed as the cessation of employment exceeded 6 months, making the layoff permanent under Article 286 of the Labor Code. As over 3 years had passed since the supposed temporary layoff and the new premises were complete, the employment relationships had ceased, constituting illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs. ROLANDO ADANA, et al. G.R. No.

    157634, May 16, 2005


     
    FACTS:
    Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR) hired herein 16 respondents as employees in its
    business in Legaspi City.  Its operation was suspended on March 31, 1997 due to the expiration and non-
    renewal of the lease contract for the space it rented.  While waiting for the completion of the construction
    of its new site, MHR continued its operation in another site with 9 of the 16 employees.  When the new
    site constructed and MHR resumed its business operation, none of the 16 employees was recalled to
    work. 
    MHR alleged business losses as the reason for not reinstating the respondents.  On various dates,
    respondents filed complaints for underpayment of wages, money claims and illegal dismissal. 

    ISSUES:
    Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner;

    HELD:
    Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed.

    Article 286 of the Labor Code is clear — there is termination of employment when an
    otherwise bona fide suspension of work exceeds six (6) months. The cessation of employment for more
    than six months was patent and the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a just
    or authorized cause.

    In this case, since April 1997 until the time the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision in July 2000, or
    more than three (3) years after the supposed “temporary” lay-off, the employment of all the respondents
    with petitioner had ceased, notwithstanding that the new premises had been completed and the same
    resumed its operation.  This is clearly dismissal – or the permanent severance or complete separation of
    the worker from the service on the initiative of the employer regardless of the reasons therefor.

    You might also like