Here are selected June 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:
Acceptance of Benefits, render moot claim under other policies. As in the case of Capili v. National Labor Relations Commission [273 SCRA 576], a claim for benefit under the company’s retirement plan becomes moot when the employee accepts retirement benefits on the basis of Article 287 of the Labor Code. By Yuson’s acceptance of her retirement benefits through a compromise agreement entered into with her employer, she is deemed to have opted to retire under Article 287. Korean Air Co., Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim v. Adelina A.S. Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010.
Approval for company’s early retirement program; management prerogative. Approval of applications for the early retirement program (“ERP”) is within the employer’s management prerogatives. The exercise of management prerogative is valid as long as it is not done in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner. In the present case, the Court sees no bad faith on the part of the employer. The 21 August 2001 memorandum clearly states that petitioner, on its discretion, was offering ERP to its employees. The memorandum also states that the reason for the ERP was to prevent further losses. Petitioner did not abuse its discretion when it excluded respondent in the ERP because the latter is already about to retire. To allow respondent to avail of the ERP would have been contrary to the purpose of the program. Korean Air Co., Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim v. Adelina A.S. Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010.
Constructive dismissal; definition; transfer as management prerogative. Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. It exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.
Here, there was no diminution of petitioner’s salary and other benefits. There was no evidence that she was harassed or discriminated upon, or that respondents made it difficult for her to continue with her other duties. Absent any evidence of bad faith, it is within the exercise of respondents’ management prerogative to transfer some of petitioner’s duties, if, in their judgment, this would be more beneficial to the corporation. Estrella Velasco vs. Transit Automotive Supply, Inc. and Antonio de Dios, G.R. No. 171327, June 18, 2010.
Constructive dismissal; off-detailing; resignation; notice requirement. The company evidently placed petitioner on floating status after being relieved of her position. But, as the Court has repeatedly ruled, such act of “off-detailing” does not amount to a dismissal so long as the floating status does not continue beyond a reasonable time. In this case, the employee’s floating status ran up to more than six months as of August 16, 2002. For this reason, the company may be considered to have constructively dismissed the employee from work as of that date. Hence, petitioner’s purported resignation on October 15, 2002 could not have been legally possible.
The company claims that it gave petitioner notices on August 23, 2002 and September 2, 2002, asking her to explain her failure to report for work and informing her that the company would treat such failure as lack of interest in her continued employment. But these notices cannot possibly take the place of the notices required by law as they came more than six months after the company placed her on floating status, at which time, the employee is already deemed to have been constructively dismissed her from work. Elsa S. Mali-on v. Equitable General Services Inc., G.R. No. 185269, June 29, 2010.