This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| But while employers are given a wide latitude of discretion in the termination of services of managerial employees for loss of confidence, there must be substantial proof thereof. This means that the employer must clearly and convincingly establish the charges, or, in fine, the facts and incidents upon which the loss of confidence may fairly be made to rest,[22] that is, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established or proven facts.[23] Moreover, loss of confidence, as a ground for termination, should not be (1) simulated; (2) used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; (3) arbitrarily asserted; and (4) a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.[24] | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. (Emphasis supplied). It is implemented by Rule XXIII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code,[53] which provides: Section 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice.- | |||||