This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is no denying that petitioners were managerial employees. They executed management policies, they had the power to hire personnel and assign them tasks; and discipline the employees in their branch. They recommended actions on employees to the head office.[19] Pertinent is Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code defining a managerial employee as one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Consequently, as managerial employees, in the case of petitioners, the mere existence of grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justify their dismissal.[20] Pursuant to our ruling in Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission,[21] as long as the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the managerial employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, or the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position, the managerial employee can be dismissed. | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the award of indemnity, indemnity is given to the dismissed employee for failure of the employer to strictly comply with the requirements of due process.[25] This Court has awarded indemnity in amounts ranging from P1,000.00 to P10,000.00 depending on the particular circumstances of each case.[26] The award of P10,000.00 to Lamique is reasonable and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[27] | |||||