Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN BANK v. LUIS B. BARRIENTOS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181146 2011-01-26	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by the evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. Patently erroneous findings of the Labor Arbiter, even when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are not binding on this Court.[25]
	GR No. 171115 2010-08-09	NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN v. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
We reject petitioners' claim that respondent company failed to observe the requirements of procedural due process. "In the dismissal of employees, it has been consistently held that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (a) a notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b) a subsequent notice informing the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him."[41]
	GR No. 168876 2009-02-10	PHILIPPINE PASAY CHUNG HUA ACADEMY v. SERVANDO L. EDPAN QUISUMBING, J.
In the dismissal of employees, it has been consistently held that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. Article 277 (b)[25] of the Labor Code and Section 2,[26] Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code require the employer to furnish the employee with two written notices, to wit: (1) a written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; and (2) a written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.[27] The first notice which may be considered as the proper charge, serves to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second notice on the other hand seeks to inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[28] With regard to the requirement of a hearing, it should be stressed that the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[29]
	GR No. 166211 2008-07-14	ASIAN TERMINALS v. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO QUISUMBING, J.
On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[18]
	GR NO. 167716 2006-03-23	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ELSIE ESCUDERO MANTAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In addition, although respondent's position as accounting clerk involves a high degree of responsibility requiring trust and confidence, carrying with it the duty to observe proper company procedures in the fulfillment of her job as it relates closely to the financial interests of the company,[23] the charge against her is not reasonably connected to her job of opening of savings, current and/or time deposits and the payment of withdrawals. The duty and ultimately, the responsibility of approving transactions relating to bank guarantees lie with the branch manager and the management personnel of the petitioner's head office. Thus, in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos,[24] the Court held that respondent therein was not liable of misconduct for allowing the opening of fictitious accounts, because he was merely a cashier and had no authority to approve new accounts and had no way of knowing the anomalous transactions.