The following are Supreme Court Decisions involving security of tenure:
We, therefore, uphold the finding of the Court of Appeals that respondents are petitioner’s regular employees. As such, they are entitled to security of tenure and can only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, as provided by Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, thus:
“ARTICLE 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.”
—Grandspan Development Corp., VS. Ricardo Bernardo, et. al., G.R. No. 141464, September 21, 2005
“The Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and its intent in protecting his rights. A worker’s employment is property in a constitutional sense and while the Court recognizes the right of an employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of an employee must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play. An employer’s power to discipline his employees must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.”
Topics in this post:
"security of tenure philippines", "security of tenure in the philippines", "security of tenure labor code of the philippines", "security of tenure philippine labor law", "act of security of tenure in the philippines", "employment and security of tenure in the philippines", "philippine employment tenure"