This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As we already held, gross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect because both involve specific acts of omission resulting in damage to another.[17] Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[18] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| 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.[17] As a just cause for an employee's dismissal, inefficiency or neglect of duty must not only be gross but also habitual. Thus, a single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[18] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While it is settled that the imposition of legal interest on monetary awards is subject to the sound discretion of the court which, if properly exercised, will not be disturbed on appeal,[14] the appellate court inexplicably deleted the award in the dispositive portion of its assailed Decision, without indicating in any portion of the Decision the reason therefor. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is a well-settled principle that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[20] because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[21] On this point alone, the petition could be denied outright. Nonetheless, like the Court of Appeals, we deign to decide the case on the merits. | |||||