This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court has previously upheld as legal the dismissal of employees for using the employer's vehicle for their own private purposes without prior permission or authority. In Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of Davao,[76] the Court held that “a rule prohibiting employees from using company vehicles for private purposes without authority from management is a reasonable one.” Thus, an employee who used the company vehicle twice in pursuing his own personal interests, on company time and deviating from his authorized route, all without permission, was held to have been validly dismissed, for, as the Court held, to condone the employee's conduct will erode the discipline that an employer should uniformly apply so that it can expect compliance to the same rules and regulations by its other employees.[77] In another case, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines v. NLRC,[78] the Court also affirmed the dismissal of an employee who used the company vehicle twice without permission and for personal reasons, noting that employees must yield obedience to the rule against unauthorized use of company vehicles because this is proper and necessary for the conduct of the employer's business or concern.[79] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Also, the CA's conclusion that he has been a dependable and reliable employee and thus deserving of petitioner's compassion is without basis. The auxiliary review of Quebral's employment record by petitioner's management which was requested by respondent union revealed violations of company rules he committed for the preceding twelve months prior to his dismissal. And for said violations, petitioner extended consideration to Quebral by lowering the penalty imposed on him. Had Quebral valued the considerations extended to him by his employer in the past, he would have have been more careful in his actions. Moreover, this Court recognizes the prerogative of an employer to prescribe rules and regulations in its business operations and its right to exact compliance with them by its employees. As held in Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC[21]: It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the peremptory dismissal of the employee. | |||||
|
2004-10-04 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC,[4] we held:"It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee." | |||||