This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC[38] tersely described the mechanics of what may be considered a two-part due process requirement which includes the two-notice rule, "x x x one, of the intention to dismiss, indicating therein his acts or omissions complained against, and two, notice of the decision to dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the charges against him, in between such notices." | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, petitioner's acceptance of commissions and rebates from MECO, without the knowledge and consent of Citytrust and without said rebates and commissions being reported and turned over to the latter, are acts which can clearly be considered as a willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed by Citytrust upon him. Settled is the rule that an employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer.[30] A company has the right to dismiss its employees if only as a measure of self-protection.[31] This is all the more true in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility.[32] In the present case, the Court finds that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that Citytrust is justified in dismissing petitioner from his employment for loss of trust and confidence. | |||||
|
2005-10-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Citing Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. NLRC[19] and MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[20] the NLRC ruled that an employee's acquittal in the criminal case does not preclude a finding that he has been guilty of acts inimical to the employer's interest. The labor tribunal further pointed out that the private respondents were charged with violating the company policy of prohibiting cobit, bringing of items outside the company premises without the proper gate pass, and misconduct for challenging the blue guards in reporting their offense to the management. Considering that the private respondents did not deny the existence of such company policy and that they had no gate pass for the fish, it does not matter whether they caught it while at sea, or that such fish were chargeable to their allowance. | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, in his separate opinion in MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[30] which opinion he reiterated in Serrano, stated:C. Where there is just cause for dismissal but due process has not been properly observed by an employer, it would not be right to order either the reinstatement of the dismissed employee or the payment of backwages to him. In failing, however, to comply with the procedure prescribed by law in terminating the services of the employee, the employer must be deemed to have opted or, in any case, should be made liable, for the payment of separation pay. It might be pointed out that the notice to be given and the hearing to be conducted generally constitute the two-part due process requirement of law to be accorded to the employee by the employer. Nevertheless, peculiar circumstances might obtain in certain situations where to undertake the above steps would be no more than a useless formality and where, accordingly, it would not be imprudent to apply the res ipsa loquitur rule and award, in lieu of separation pay, nominal damages to the employee. x x x.[31] | |||||