Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174224 2008-10-17	MARCIAL APARECE v. J. MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the former has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him.[17] The first notice must state that dismissal is sought for the act or omission charged against the employee. Otherwise, the notice cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the rules.[18]
	GR No. 173151 2008-03-28	EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Conformably, the award of backwages by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should be deleted and, instead, private respondent should be indemnified in the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages.[43]
	GR NO. 171703 2006-09-22	ACE PROMOTION v. REYNALDO URSABIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that respondent was not afforded his procedural due process rights. In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the former worker has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him. The first notice must state that dismissal is sought for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise, the notice cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the rules. [23]
	GR NO. 160509 2006-03-10	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO CARPIO, J.
In dismissing an employee, the employer must serve the employee 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.[23] 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.[24]
	GR No. 165268 2005-11-08	CHALLENGE SOCKS CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed worker has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him.[28]
	GR NO. 167462 2005-10-25	MANLY EXPRESS INC. v. ROMUALDO PAYONG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We also note that Manly failed to comply with the procedure for terminating an employee. In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him. The first notice must state that dismissal is sought for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise, the notice cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the rules.[11]
	GR NO. 166379 2005-10-20	LAKPUE DRUG v. MA. LOURDES BELGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Electro System Industries Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[16] we held that, in dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the worker has been served two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the other to inform him of his employer's decision to dismiss him. The first notice must state that the dismissal is sought for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise the notice cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the rules. It must also inform outright that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Further, we held that a notation in the notice that the employee refused to sign is not sufficient proof that the employer attempted to serve the notice to the employee.