This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To constitute just cause for an employee's dismissal, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but also habitual. Gross neglect means an absence of that diligence that an ordinarily prudent man would use in his own affairs.[74] Meanwhile, to be considered habitual, the negligence must not be a single or isolated act.[75] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To effectuate a valid dismissal from employment by the employer, the Labor Code has set twin requirements, namely: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. This first requisite is referred to as the substantive aspect, while the second is deemed as the procedural aspect.[13] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In many cases, it has been held that in termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and therefore illegal.[40] Taking into account the character of the charges and the penalty meted to an employee, the employer is bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal.[41] This is consistent with the principle of security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.[42] | |||||