Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAKPUE DRUG v. MA. LOURDES BELGA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163431 2013-08-28	NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS BERSAMIN, J.
Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is one of the valid grounds to terminate an employee under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code.[19] For willful disobedience to be a ground, it is required that: (a) the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge.[20] Willfulness must be attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination.[21] In any case, the conduct of the employee that is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code constitutes harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his employer.[22] It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undue advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.
	GR No. 167310 2008-06-17	PENINSULA MANILA QUISUMBING, J.
We have defined misconduct as any forbidden act or dereliction of duty. It is willful in character and implies a wrongful intent, not a mere error in judgment. The misconduct, to be serious, must be grave and not merely trivial.[14]
	GR No. 153510 2008-02-13	R.B. MICHAEL PRESS and ANNALENE REYES ESCOBIA v. NICASIO C. GALIT VELASCO JR., J.
The issue now is, whether respondent's refusal or failure to render overtime work was willful; that is, whether such refusal or failure was characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. In Lakpue Drug Inc. v. Belga, willfulness was described as "characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination."[14] The fact that respondent refused to provide overtime work despite his knowledge that there is a production deadline that needs to be met, and that without him, the offset machine operator, no further printing can be had, shows his wrongful and perverse mental attitude; thus, there is willfulness.
	GR NO. 150091 2007-04-02	YOLANDA O. ALFONSO v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT CARPIO MORALES, J.
"Serious misconduct," as a valid cause for the dismissal of an employee, is improper or wrong conduct; the transgression of some established and definite rule of action; a forbidden act or dereliction of duty, which is willful and intentional neglect and not mere error in judgment.[55] It must be grave and aggravated in character and not merely trivial or unimportant.[56] In addition, it must be directly related and/or connected to the performance of official duties.[57] Without question, all of these requisites are present in this case. Petitioner is thus administratively liable for serious misconduct.