This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it must also be stressed that only substantial evidence is required in order to support a finding that an employer's trust and confidence accorded to its employee had been breached. As explained in Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies:[31] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In addition, it must be observed that only substantial evidence is required in order to support a finding that an employer's trust and confidence accorded to its employee had been breached. As explained in the case of Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies:[30] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Given, however, that the petitioners expressly requested a conference or a convening of a grievance committee, following the Court's ruling in the Perez case, which was later cited in the recent case of Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies,[61] such formal hearing became mandatory. After PGAI failed to affirmatively respond to such request, it follows that the hearing requirement was not complied with and, therefore, Vallota was denied his right to procedural due process. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| For a worker's dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural and substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes substantive due process.[56] | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Just cause is required for a valid dismissal. The Labor Code[35] provides that an employer may terminate an employment based on fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed on the employee. Such breach is considered willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must also be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[36] | |||||