Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CENTER v. CECILIA BEA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 188464 2015-07-29	ALBERTO J. RAZA v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. PERALTA, J.
Before the Court resolves the issue, it needs reiterating that such an exercise requires this Court to re-examine the facts and weigh the evidence on record, which is normally a task that is not for this Court to perform, for basic is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases.[49] Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve.[50] It is elementary that the scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact.[51]
	GR No. 189404 2013-12-11	WILGEN LOON v. POWER MASTER BRION, J.
Based on the above considerations, we reverse the NLRC and the CA's finding that the petitioners were terminated for just cause and were afforded procedural due process. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer. The employer's failure to discharge this burden results in the finding that the dismissal is unjustified.[40] This is exactly what happened in the present case.
	GR No. 171993 2011-12-12	MARC II MARKETING v. ALFREDO M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer. The latter's failure to discharge that burden would necessarily result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. [46]
	GR No. 177576 2008-07-21	UNIVERSAL STAFFING SERVICES v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
Morales was dismissed for her alleged poor performance. As a general concept, "poor performance" is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Thus, the fact that an employee's performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[12]
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side.[74] It is not the denial of the right to be heard but denial of the opportunity to be heard that constitutes violation of due process of law.[75] In the instant case, private respondent was again notified of the August 12, 1998 hearing through a letter[76] dated August 8, 1998 which was received by private respondent herself.[77] Clearly, private respondent was given an opportunity to be heard. However, private respondent chose not to attend the scheduled hearing because of her mistaken belief that she had already been constructively dismissed.
	GR No. 154654 2007-09-14	JOSEPHINE A. TAGUINOD v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the authority of the CA to review resolutions and decisions of quasi-judicial bodies on questions of fact. Thus, it is the appellate court which must determine if substantial evidence is extant on record to support the findings of fact of the quasi-judicial bodies. Such review is however guided by the long-settled doctrine that factual findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise in the performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.[33]
	GR NO. 171131 2007-07-10	NEW SUNRISE METAL CONSTRUCTION v. VICTOR PIA CARPIO MORALES, J.
At all events, unsatisfactory performance cannot be considered a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code if it does not amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties.[16] On this score, petitioners failed to prove that the alleged inefficiency of the 12 respondents amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties.
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The foregoing provision has been interpreted to mean that the written notice to the employees who stand to lose their employment must specify the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for their dismissal.[34] The rule ensures that the employees are able to answer the charges and to defend themselves from imputed wrongdoings before their dismissals are ordered.