This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer. The word probationary, as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer, to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, at the same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment.[41] The concept of probationary employment was, thus, introduced for the benefit of the employer to provide him with ample time to observe and determine whether a newly hired employee has the competence, ability and values necessary to achieve his objectives. | |||||
|
2008-10-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer. The word "probationary," as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer at the same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment.[35] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the present case, petitioner was not dismissed for serious misconduct, which is among the grounds for dismissing regular employees enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Petitioner was a probationary employee, not a regular employee. A probationary employee is one, who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for a permanent position. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence, as well as the attitude of a probationer.[25] The Labor Code assigns a separate provision, Article 281, and provides a different set of grounds for the dismissal of probationary employees:ART. 281. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT | |||||
|
2007-02-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar, the plain and adequate remedy was a motion for reconsideration of the impugned resolution within ten days from receipt of the questioned resolution of the NLRC, a procedure which was jurisdictional.[13] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While a contract is the law between the parties,[18] it is also settled that an existing law enters into and forms part of a valid contract without the need for the parties expressly making reference to it.[19] Thus, the lower courts correctly applied Article 2212 of the Civil Code as the basis for the imposition of the legal interest on the stipulated interest due. It reads:Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT PREVENTING MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND NOT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION TO LABOR.[10] Petitioners argue that there is nothing in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 that require all the petitioners to execute and sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioners cite Escorpizo v. University of Baguio[11] in insisting that the certification of non-forum shopping may be signed by any of the principal parties, not necessarily all of the principal parties. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Completing the probation period does not automatically qualify her to become a permanent employee of the university. Petitioner could only qualify to become a permanent employee upon fulfilling the reasonable standards for permanent employment as faculty member.[18] Consistent with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and determine whether these standards have been met.[19] At the end of the probation period, the decision to re-hire an employee on probation, belongs to the university as the employer alone. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| parties and not only the legal counsel.[10] The CA held that there was substantial compliance with the Rules of Court, citing Dimagiba vs. Montalvo, Jr.,[11] to the effect that a lawyer who assumes responsibility for a client's cause has the duty to know the entire history of the case, especially if any litigation is commenced.[12] This view, however, no longer holds authoritative value in the light of Digital Microwave Corporation vs. CA,[13] where it was held that the reason the certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner himself is that only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in other courts or tribunals. Even counsel of record may be unaware of such fact. To our mind, this view is more in accord with the intent and purpose of Revised circular No. 28-91. Thus, in Valentin Ortiz and Camilla Milan Ortiz vs. CA,[14] we ruled that: Regrettably, we find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided for in circular No. 28-91. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the | |||||