Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NLRC v. MA. BERNADETTE S. SALGARINO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 164181 2011-09-14	NISSAN MOTORS PHILS. v. VICTORINO ANGELO PERALTA, J.
It must be emphasized at this point that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the employer. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal.[27] In this case, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were not amiss in finding that the dismissal of respondent was legal or for a just cause based on substantial evidence presented by petitioner. Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of proof required in labor cases, is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[28]
	GR No. 160506 2010-03-09	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct; the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful in character implying wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant.[46] To be a just cause for dismissal, such misconduct (a) must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[47]
	GR No. 165199 2009-11-27	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. INOCENCIO B. BERBANO CARPIO, J.
Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.[23] Ordinary misconduct would not justify the termination of services of the employee as the Labor Code is explicit that the misconduct must be serious.[24] To be serious, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant.[25] Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation.[26] As amplified by jurisprudence, misconduct, to be a just cause for dismissal, must (a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[27] Moreover, in National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino,[28] this Court stressed that "[i]n order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent."
	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court is not unmindful of the equally important right of respondent as employer under the Constitution to be protected in its property and interest. The particular circumstances attendant in this case, however, convince the Court that the supreme penalty of dismissal upon petitioner is not justified. The law regards the workers with compassion. Even where a worker has committed an infraction of company rules and regulations, a penalty less punitive than dismissal may suffice. This is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent upon the wage-earner.[38]
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino,[40] the Court stressed that "[i]n order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent."
	GR No. 160240 2008-10-29	WOODRIDGE SCHOOL v. JOANNE C. PE BENITO NACHURA, J.
The Labor Code commands that before an employer may legally dismiss an employee from the service, the requirement of substantial and procedural due process must be complied with.[42] Under the requirement of substantial due process, the grounds for termination of employment must be based on just[43] or authorized causes.[44]
	GR No. 172528 2008-02-26	JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA v. BENJAMIN A. SILAYRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and therefore was illegal.[36] Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately prove, especially when it is the basis for termination.