Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRIMO T. TANALA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 152048 2009-04-07	FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CORONA, J.
On September 3, 1993, petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30 days for their alleged involvement in the anomaly.[1] Their suspension was extended for 15 days twice: first on October 3, 1993[2] and second on October 18, 1993.[3]
	GR No. 167449 2008-12-17	BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB v. RICHARD NIXON A. BABAN REYES, R.T., J.
However, while We find that the dismissal is valid, We are not deaf to respondent's plea for mercy. In a line of cases We have held that separation pay may be awarded as some equitable relief in consideration of the past services rendered.[32] Since respondent was validly dismissed for a cause other than serious misconduct or those that negatively reflect on his moral character,[33] the award of separation pay is justifiable. This award is merely to coat the bitter termination experienced by respondent with a little social justice.[34] Separation pay at the rate of one month salary for every year of service is proper.[35]
	GR No. 153510 2008-02-13	R.B. MICHAEL PRESS and ANNALENE REYES ESCOBIA v. NICASIO C. GALIT VELASCO JR., J.
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment. In addition, if the continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employers or of other employees like theft or physical injuries, and there is a need for preventive suspension,[17] the employers can immediately suspend the erring employees for a period of not more than 30 days. Notwithstanding the suspension, the employers are tasked to comply with the twin notice requirement under the law. The preventive suspension cannot replace the required notices.[18] Thus, there is still a need to comply with the twin notice requirement and the requisite hearing or conference to ensure that the employees are afforded due process even though they may have been caught in flagrante or when the evidence of the commission of the offense is strong.