Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LADISLAO P. VERGARA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197763 2015-12-07	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM VELASCO JR., J.
In Amadeo Fishing Corporation v. Nierra,[31] the Court ruled that "an acquittal in criminal prosecution does not have the effect of extinguishing liability for dismissal on the ground of breach of trust and confidence." While in Vergara v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] the Court was even more succinct and ruled that the filing of the complaint by. the public prosecutor is a sufficient ground for a dismissal of an employee for loss of trust and confidence, to wit:The Court finds adequate basis for private respondent's loss of trust and confidence in petitioner, x x x Besides, the evidence supporting the criminal charge, found after preliminary investigation as sufficient to show prima facie guilt, constitutes just cause for his termination based on loss of trust and confidence. To constitute just cause, petitioner's malfeasance did not require criminal conviction. Verily, petitioner was dismissed not because he was convicted of theft, but because his dishonest acts were substantially proven, (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 164016 2010-03-15	RENO FOODS v. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA - KATIPUNAN ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Nicolas v. National Labor Relations Commission,[18] we held that a criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment termination. Otherwise stated, an employee's acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer's interests.[19]
	GR NO. 163099 2005-10-04	AMADEO FISHING CORPORATION v. ROMEO NIERRA CALLEJO, SR., J.
[35] Vergara v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117196, 5 December 1997, 282 SCRA 486.
	GR NO. 158684 2005-05-16	PATERNO S. MENDOZA v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner insists that the reliance of the CA on the Court's ruling in Vergara v. NLRC[15] is misplaced. In the said case, it was declared that the failure to post an appeal bond does not prejudice the perfection of the appeal. However, the petitioner avers, the party filing the appeal therein exerted efforts to determine the amount to be used as basis for the posting of the appeal bond, thus indicating the intention to post the said bond. Furthermore, notwithstanding the failure of the decision to fix the amount of the monetary award, the respondents themselves could have come up with their own computation of the backwages and other benefits, which they could then have used as basis for the posting of the appeal bond. According to the petitioner, the respondents could have sought a clarificatory order from the Labor Arbiter to have the monetary award fixed.