Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SIXTA C. LIM v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 162385 2013-07-15	SAMAR-MED DISTRIBUTION v. NLRC BERSAMIN, J.
The first written notice would inform Gutang of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal was being sought. The second written notice would notify him of the employer's decision to dismiss him. But the second written notice must not be made until after he was given a reasonable period after receiving the first written notice within which to answer the charge, and after he was given the ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desired.[21] The requirement was mandatory.[22]
	GR No. 164662 2013-02-18	MARIA LOURDES C. DE JESUS v. RAUL T. AQUINO BERSAMIN, J.
and in Section 2[15] and Section 7,[16] Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. The first written notice would inform her of the particular acts or omissions for which her dismissal was being sought. The second written notice would notify her of the employer's decision to dismiss her. But the second written notice must not be made until after she was given a reasonable period after receiving the first written notice within which to answer the charge, and after she was given the ample opportunity to be heard and to defend herself with the assistance of her representative, if she so desired.[17] The requirement was mandatory.[18]
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
In Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] the Court considered inefficiency as an analogous just cause for termination of employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code: We cannot but agree with PEPSI that "gross inefficiency" falls within the purview of "other causes analogous to the foregoing," this constitutes, therefore, just cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. One is analogous to another if it is susceptible of comparison with the latter either in general or in some specific detail; or has a close relationship with the latter. "Gross inefficiency" is closely related to "gross neglect," for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his business. In Buiser vs. Leogardo, this Court ruled that failure to observed prescribed standards to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR NO. 154308 2005-03-10	BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
The due process prescribed in Article 277[27] of the Labor Code, as amended, and in Sections 2[28] and 7,[29] Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, are mandatory.[30] Two notices should be sent to the employee. The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; while the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The latter must come after the employee is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the charge, and ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires.[31] In this case, the respondents only sent the first notice, gleaned from the June 20, 1996 memorandum. There was no second notice. Neither the public notice in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation, nor the demand letter could constitute substantial compliance. What the public notice did was to inform the public that petitioner was already separated as of June 20, 1996, the same day he was suspended.