Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHALLENGE SOCKS CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 192190 2012-04-25	BILLY M. REALDA v. NEW AGE GRAPHICS REYES, J.
This Court cannot condone the petitioner's attempt to belittle his habitual tardiness and absenteeism as these are manifestation of lack of initiative, diligence and discipline that are adverse to Graphics, Inc.'s interest. In Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court said that it reflects an indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in work. It is inimical to the general productivity and business of the employer. This is especially true when it occurred frequently and repeatedly within an extensive period of time and despite several warnings.
	GR No. 172988 2010-07-26	JOSE P. ARTIFICIO v. NLRC PEREZ, J.
This Court has upheld a company's management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.[20]
	GR No. 171790 2008-10-17	BRENDO D. MERIN v. NLRC TINGA, J.
The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other.[28] While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty[29] Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.[30] We find just cause in petitioner's termination.
	GR No. 173151 2008-03-28	EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold, the substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just[21] or authorized cause,[22] the rudimentary requirements of due process - notice and hearing[23] - must, likewise, be observed before an employee may be dismissed. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination would, in the eyes of the law, be illegal,[24] for employment is a property right of which one cannot be deprived of without due process.[25]
	GR No. 159625 2008-01-31	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed worker has been served two notices: (1) the first to inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the employer seeks his dismissal, and (2) the second to inform the employee of his employer's decision to terminate him.[17] The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee; otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules.[18]
	GR NO. 156964 2007-07-04	MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed worker has been served two notices: (1) the first to inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the employer seeks his dismissal; and (2) the second to inform the employee of his employer's decision to terminate him.[24] The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules.[25]
	GR NO. 161829 2007-04-13	ARCADIO M. CARANDANG CORONA, J.
In Torres v. Aguinaldo,[19] we had the opportunity to distinguish between the effects of the orders granting a motion to withdraw an Information and a motion to dismiss:A motion to withdraw differs from a motion to dismiss. While both put an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. The order granting the withdrawal of the information attains finality after the fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, without prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon reinvestigation. On the other hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of the same case once such order achieves finality. (emphasis supplied) According to Torres, an order granting a motion to withdraw an Information will not bar its subsequent re-filing. The dismissal of the case on this basis is without prejudice to its re-filing.