Wensha vs Yung Case Digest

Topics: Employment, Termination of employment, Legal terms Pages: 2 (816 words) Published: November 19, 2012
G.R. No. 185122 August 16, 2010
WENSHA SPA CENTER, INC. and/or XU ZHI JIE, Petitioners,
LORETA T. YUNG, Respondent.

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by an employer who was charged before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for dismissing an employee upon the advice of a Feng Shui master. Facts: Wensha Spa Center, Inc. (Wensha) in Quezon City is in the business of sauna bath and massage services. Xu Zhi Jie a.k.a. Pobby Co (Xu) is its president,3 respondent Loreta T. Yung (Loreta) was its administrative manager at the time of her termination from employment. Loreta recounted that on August 10, 2004, she was asked to leave her office because Xu and a Feng Shui master were exploring the premises. Later that day, Xu asked Loreta to go on leave with pay for one month. She did so and returned on September 10, 2004. Upon her return, Xu and his wife asked her to resign from Wensha because, according to the Feng Shui master, her aura did not match that of Xu. Loreta refused but was informed that she could no longer continue working at Wensha. That same afternoon, Loreta went to the NLRC and filed a case for illegal dismissal against Xu and Wensha. Labor Arbiter (LA) Francisco Robles dismissed Loreta’s complaint for lack of merit. He found it more probable that Loreta was dismissed from her employment due to Wensha’s loss of trust and confidence in her. NLRC affirmed in its Resolution,9 citing its observation that Wensha was still considering the proper action to take on the day Loreta left Wensha and filed her complaint. CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC on the ground that it gravely abused its discretion in appreciating the factual bases that led to Loreta’s dismissal. The CA noted that there were irregularities and inconsistencies in Wensha’s position. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Xu Zhi Jie is solidarily liable with Wensha. Ruling: Loreta’s security of tenure is guaranteed by the...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Navarro vs Villegas Case Digest Essay
  • Essay about Ching vs. Salinas Case Digest
  • Case Digest Essay
  • Case Digests Essay
  • Essay about Case Digest
  • Case digest Essay
  • Case Digests Essay
  • Essay about Case Digest

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free