Security of Tenure under Philippine Laws
Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, which took effect on March 21, 1989, provides that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to 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.
The policy of the State to assure the right of "workers" to security of tenure (Section 9, Article II, Constitution) is an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary and unjust deprivation of his job. (G.R. No. 108405, April 4, 2003)
There can be no dispute that the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure mandated under Section 9, Article 2, 1973 Constitution applies to all employees and laborers, whether in the government service or in the private sector. The fact that petitioner is a managerial employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Even a manager of a private concern has the right to be secure in his position to decline a promotion where, although the promotion carries an increase in his salary and rank but results in his transfer to a new place of assignment or station and away from his family. Such an order constitutes removal without just cause and is illegal. Nor can the removal be justified on the ground of loss of confidence as now claimed by Private respondent Northwest, insisting as it does that by petitioner's alleged contumacious refusal to obey the transfer order, said petitioner was guilty of insubordination.(G.R. No. L-51182, July 5, 1983)
The policy of the State to assure the right of "workers" to security of tenure (Section 9, Article II, Constitution) is an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary and unjust deprivation of his job. (G.R. No. 108405, April 4, 2003)
There can be no dispute that the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure mandated under Section 9, Article 2, 1973 Constitution applies to all employees and laborers, whether in the government service or in the private sector. The fact that petitioner is a managerial employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Even a manager of a private concern has the right to be secure in his position to decline a promotion where, although the promotion carries an increase in his salary and rank but results in his transfer to a new place of assignment or station and away from his family. Such an order constitutes removal without just cause and is illegal. Nor can the removal be justified on the ground of loss of confidence as now claimed by Private respondent Northwest, insisting as it does that by petitioner's alleged contumacious refusal to obey the transfer order, said petitioner was guilty of insubordination.(G.R. No. L-51182, July 5, 1983)
