Almira xxx who is dating skandar keynes

Posted by / 25-Jun-2018 19:59

Almira xxx

86917-18 January 25, 1991 RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.

Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for petitioner.

There is no dispute that the strike in question was illegal, for failure of the striking personnel to observe legal strike requirements, to wit: (1) as to the fifteen-day notice; (2) as to the two-thirds required vote to strike done by secret ballot; (3) as to submission of the strike vote to the Department of Labor at least seven days prior to the strike.4 As found likewise by the Commission, in the course of the strike held on April 1, 1987, certain strikers harassed non-striking employees, called company officers names, and committed acts of violence (as a result of which, criminal charges were brought with the fiscal's office.)5 There is no question, finally, that the strike itself was prompted by no actual, existing unfair labor practice committed by the petitioner.

Charged, together with the union and its members, as individual respondents in the petition to declare the strike illegal were the following officers: Rolando Tugade, president; Joseph Aying, vice-president; Isagani Rubio, treasurer; Ms. Rosalinda Macapagal, secretaries; Froilan Garcia and Ms. at arms: Orlando Calma, auditor; and Manolo Que, pro, who, the company claims, should be divested of their employment status for having knowingly participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegal acts.1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x However, while we are convinced that the strike is illegal, we are equally convinced that it should not be visited with the consequence so harsh as the supreme penalty of dismissal, where merely reinstating them (strikers) without backwages would suffice in view of the union's belief, in proceeding with strike, that the company was committing unfair labor practice in terminating the services of some of its officers and members, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ferrer vs. In justifying the imposition of a penalty lesser than dismissal even in cases involving strikes tainted with illegality, the Supreme Court in the case of Almira vs. It is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those depending on the wage-earner.

The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided.

On 6 March 1987, the Reliance Surety & Insurance Employees Union (or union for short) filed in behalf of Rubio, Macapagal, Molina, and Cansino with the NLRC-NRC Branch, Manila, against the respondent company a complaint for illegal dismissal (NLRC- NCR Case No.

8-87) which it subsequently amended on 7 April 1987 to include the charge of unfair labor practice.

Almira xxx-87Almira xxx-39Almira xxx-36

In the first place, neither Ferrer nor Almira involved an illegal strike.