This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To our mind, the failure to reach the monthly sales quota cannot be considered an intentional and unjustified act of respondent amounting to a willful breach of trust on his part that would call for his termination based on loss of confidence. This is simply not the willful breach of trust and confidence contemplated in Article 282(c) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the low sales performance could be attributed to several factors which are beyond respondent's control. To be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach.[27] To repeat, a breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[28] | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While Article 217(a)2 [29] of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that it is the Labor Arbiter who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving termination or dismissal of workers when the person dismissed or terminated is a corporate officer, the case automatically falls within the province of the RTC. The dismissal of a corporate officer is always regarded as a corporate act and/or an intra-corporate controversy. [30] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While respondents repeatedly claim that petitioner was appointed as Manager pursuant to the corporation's By-Laws, the above-quoted inconsistencies in their allegations as to how petitioner was placed in said position, coupled by the fact that they failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that petitioner was appointed thereto by action or with approval of the board, only leads this Court to believe otherwise. It has been consistently held that "[a]n `office' is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected (or appointed) by the directors or stockholders."[27] Clearly here, respondents failed to prove that petitioner was appointed by the board of directors. Thus, we cannot subscribe to their claim that petitioner is a corporate officer. Having said this, we find that there is no intra-corporate relationship between the parties insofar as petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal is concerned and that same does not satisfy the relationship test. | |||||
|
2010-03-25 |
CARPIO, ACTING CJ. |
||||
| Corporate officers are given such character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws. Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the corporate officers are the president, secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided in the by-laws.[19] Other officers are sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the board of directors may be empowered under the by-laws of a corporation to create additional offices as may be necessary. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Ordinary company employees are generally employed not by action of the directors and stockholders but by that of the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid such employees.[21] Corporate officers, on the other hand, are elected or appointed[22] by the directors or stockholders, and are those who are given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws.[23] | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Loss of confidence applies only to cases involving employees who occupy positions of trust and confidence, or to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property. To be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach.[33] A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[34] | |||||