This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Employees cannot take company rules for granted, especially in this case where petitioner's breach involved various plant materials that may cause major disruption in the company's operations. Indeed, an employer may discharge an employee for refusal to obey a reasonable company rule.[28] As a rule, although this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property are a different matter.[29] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Lastly, as to petitioner's claim for commissions, the NLRC and the CA were correct in not sustaining the award thereof by the LA. It must be borne in mind that there is no law which requires employers to pay commissions;[19] thus, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that that there is indeed an agreement between him and his employer for payment of the same. | |||||