Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS v. KAPISANAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA-FFW

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. 178236 2008-06-27	OLIGARIO SALAS NACHURA, J.
Furthermore, Salas had already suffered the corresponding penalties for these prior infractions. Thus, to consider these offenses as justification for his dismissal would be penalizing Salas twice for the same offense. As the Court ruled in Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] and recently in Coca-Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc. v. Kapisanan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca Cola-FFW:[30]
	GR NO. 146762 2007-01-30	CULVER B. SUICO v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Company policies or practices are binding on the parties.[60] Some can ripen into an obligation on the part of the employer,[61] such as those which confer benefits on employees [62] or regulate the procedures and requirements for their termination.[63] Thus, in Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB) v. Court of Appeals,[64] the Court held that the employer BLTB is obliged under the Service Manual it issued to grant an erring employee the right to be heard and defend himself, and to apply the table of penalties fixed therein.
	GR NO. 147790 2006-06-27	GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils. Inc v. Kapisanan ng Malayang Manngagawa sa Coca-Cola-FFW, it was held that an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. Company policies and regulations are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended, unilaterally or preferably through negotiation, by competent authority. For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the same must be related to the performance of the employee's duties and must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[45]