This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Perez v. Medical City General Hospital,[72] we ruled that "[a]n employer cannot be expected to retain an employee whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer or regard for his employer's rules and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office has so plainly and completely been bared." | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears stressing that, in petitions for review on certiorari like the one at bench, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law[16] and does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[17] Whether Escudero has abandoned her job or was illegally dismissed are questions of fact better left for determination by quasi-judicial agencies[18] which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters.[19] Corollarily, the rule is settled that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only great respect but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[20] Time and again, we have reiterated the dictum that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[21] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. The dismissal of an employee, in a way, is a measure of self preservation.[25] The law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. The worker's right to security of tenure is not an absolute right, for the law provides that he may be dismissed for cause.[26] In this case, as admitted by petitioner, he was hired because of his expertise in the pre-need industry. His competence and satisfactory performance as head of the marketing group assumed primordial importance for his continued employment in the company. His dismal performance was causing the company financial losses; thus, it was not wise for the company to continue his services. To be sure, an employer cannot be compelled to continue with the employment of workers when continued employment will prove inimical to the employer's interest.[27] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during trial. However, there are several exceptions to this rule[38] such as when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter differ from those of the NLRC, as in the instant case, which opens the door to a review by this Court.[39] | |||||