This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Molina v. Pacific Plans, Inc.,[68] this Court ruled: xxx Moreover, an employer has a protectable interest in the customer relationships of its former employee established and/or nurtured while employed by the employer, and is entitled to protect itself from the risk that a former employee might appropriate customers by taking unfair advantage of the contract developed while working for the employer. While acting as an agent of his employer, an employee owes the duty of fidelity and loyalty. Being a fiduciary, he cannot act inconsistently with his agency or trust. He cannot solicit his employer's customers or co-employees for himself or for a business competitor of his employer, x x x[69] (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have consistently ruled that the power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. The law, however, 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.[25] Furthermore, Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that an employee may be terminated from the service on either of the following just causes: Art. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that respondent was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. With the nature of his position, he was reposed with managerial duties to oversee petitioner's business in his assigned area. As a managerial employee, respondent was tasked to perform important and crucial functions and, thus, bound by more exacting work ethic. He should have realized that such sensitive position required the full trust and confidence of his employer in every exercise of managerial discretion insofar as the conduct of the latter's business is concerned.[30] The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. 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.[31] As a general rule, employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel. The mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust and confidence of his employer would suffice for his dismissal.[32] Needless to say, an irresponsible employee like respondent does not deserve a place in the workplace, and it is petitioner's management prerogative to terminate his employment. 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.[33] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The issues raised by petitioner are evidently factual in nature. By giving due coarse to his petition, this Court is not departing from the well-settled rule that questions of facts are not reviewable.[24] The discordant findings between the Labor Arbiter and the NLR.C however open the door for review.[25] | |||||
|
2008-06-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Even if petitioner had no other intention but to improve the business of respondent company, the Court agrees with the CA and NLRC in ruling that she should have first coursed the said information to her superiors instead of hastily sending correspondence to their client, considering that the information she possessed was prejudicial to her employer's business. Petitioner should have confined her grievance or complaint regarding the conduct of her employer's business within the company. As a managerial employee, she is expected to exercise her judgment and discretion with utmost care and concern for her employer's business. The Court agrees with the CA that petitioner is tasked to perform key functions and, unlike ordinary employees, she is bound by a more exacting work ethic.[22] In sending e-mails to Trans-America, she unnecessarily and prematurely exposed the company's shortcomings in handling the business of its clients when the company could have possibly rectified or remedied the matter before any damage was done. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| At the outset, it bears emphasis that the existence of employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. Generally, only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. This rule, however, is not absolute. Among the several recognized exceptions is when the findings of the Court of Appeals and Labor Arbiters, on one hand, and that of the NLRC, on the other, are conflicting,[15] as obtaining in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As an exception to the general rule, we held in Molina v. Pacific Plans, Inc.: [33] | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Amid these conflicting findings, which circumstance is a recognized exception[11] to the general rule that only questions of law may be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari,[12] this Court is constrained to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence proffered by petitioners in dismissing respondents. | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Misconduct has been defined as an improper or wrong conduct; a transgression of some established and definite rule of action; a forbidden act; a dereliction of duty. It implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. To be categorized as serious, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. And to constitute just cause for an employee's separation, it must be in connection with his work.[23] | |||||