Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 173882 2012-02-15	JULIE’S BAKESHOP v. HENRY ARNAIZ EDGAR NAPAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners' claim that respondents abandoned their job stands on shallow grounds. Respondents cannot be faulted for refusing to report for work as they were compelled to quit their job due to a demotion without any just cause. Moreover, we have consistently held that a charge of abandonment is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for constructive dismissal.[35] Respondents' demand to maintain their positions as chief bakers by filing a case and asking for the relief of reinstatement belies abandonment.[36]
	GR No. 169725 2010-04-30	RICARDO V. CASTILLO v. UNIWIDE WAREHOUSE CLUB PERALTA, J.
The petitioners before the Court of Appeals, respondents herein, are the company, Uniwide Warehouse Club, Inc., and its president, Jimmy Gow. The latter was impleaded before the Court of Appeals only and simply because he was a co-respondent in the illegal dismissal complaint filed by herein petitioner. It is to be noted that Jimmy Gow has no interest in this case separate and distinct from that of the company, which, for legal purposes was the direct employer of petitioner. Any award of reinstatement, backwages, attorney's fees and damages in favor of petitioner will be enforced against the company as the real party-in-interest in the illegal dismissal case. Respondent Jimmy Gow is clearly a mere nominal party to the case. Therefore, his failure to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping does not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for the Court of Appeals to deny the certiorari petition.[32]
	GR No. 167310 2008-06-17	PENINSULA MANILA QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, the award of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence[19] and thus ought to be affirmed.
	GR No. 145587 2007-10-26	EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must concur: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[47]
	GR NO. 158499 2007-04-03	NS TRANSPORT SERVICES v. JOSE ZALDY N. ZETA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It bears emphasis that for termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be considered valid, the employer must prove,[27] by substantial evidence,[28] the concurrence of two essential requisites: first, the failure of the employee to report for work or his absence from work without valid or justifiable reason;[29] and second, his clear and deliberate intention to discontinue his employment.[30] The second requisite, considered to be the more crucial one, may be established by evidence of overt acts on the part of the employee from which may be inferred a lack of intention to resume his work.[31]
	GR NO. 162813 2007-02-12	FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY v. JIMMY LEBATIQUE QUISUMBING, J.
It is well settled that in cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid cause.[9] In this case, petitioners failed to discharge such burden. Petitioners aver that Lebatique was merely suspended for one day but he abandoned his work thereafter. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be: (a) absence without justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.[10]
	GR NO. 154532 2006-10-27	PETRON CORPORATION v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
In outrightly dismissing the petition, the CA relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[17] The appellate court's reliance on that case is misplaced. For, in the subsequent case of Micro Sales Operation Network and Willy Bendol v. NLRC, et. al., [18] wherein the CA based its dismissal of the therein similarly defective petition for certiorari on the strength of Loquias, this Court ruled: The Court of Appeals relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, which held that a certification on non-forum shopping signed by only one of two or more petitioners is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-petitioner. However, the said ruling applies when the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The said co-parties were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 15 in their various capacities.