Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ELSIE ESCUDERO MANTAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 170942 2013-08-28	COMSAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO BERSAMIN, J.
Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties;[22] it is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[24]
	GR No. 183196 2009-08-19	CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Gross negligence connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. To warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross, but also habitual.[50] A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[51]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
The respondent's illegal dismissal carries the legal consequence defined under Article 279 of the Labor Code: the illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[29] The imposition of this legal consequence is a matter of law that allows no discretion on the part of the decision maker, except only to the extent recognized by the law itself as expressed in jurisprudence.
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Gross negligence under Article 282 of the Labor Code connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[43] Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of even slight care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[44] To constitute a just cause for termination of employment, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[45]
	GR No. 165565 2008-07-14	SCHOOL OF HOLY SPIRIT OF QUEZON CITY v. CORAZON P. TAGUIAM QUISUMBING, J.
Under Article 282[15] of the Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of duties is a valid ground for an employer to terminate an employee. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[16] Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[17]