|
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Suspension of operation
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
THE sales of heavy equipment in petitioner Jesusa Adlawan Trading and General Services (JAT) declined because of the Asian currency crisis. Consequently, JAT suspended its operations. Later, JAT indefinitely closed shop.
The Court of Appeals ruled that JAT was liable for illegal dismissal because of non-compliance of the procedural and substantive requirements of terminating employment. Did the Court of Appeals err?
Ruling: Yes.
We need not belabor the issue of notice requirement for a suspension of operation of business under Article 286 of the Labor Code. This matter is not pertinent to, much less determinative of, the disposition of this case.
Suffice it to state that there is no termination of employment during the period of suspension, thus the procedural requirement for terminating an employee does not come into play yet. Rather, the issue demanding a sharpened focus here concerns the validity of dismissal resulting from the closure of JAT. (JAT General Services and Jesusa Adlawan Torobu vs. NLRC et al., G.R. 148340, Jan. 26, 2004).
(July 9, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
