This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The rule is that it is within the ambit of the employer's prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided that the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.[45] This Court has always considered the management's prerogative to transfer its employees in pursuit of its legitimate interests. But this prerogative should be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and with due regard to the basic elements of justice and fair play, such that if there is a showing that the transfer was unnecessary or inconvenient and prejudicial to the employee, it cannot be upheld.[46] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also dismissed respondent because of gross or habitual negligence. Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual.[24] In finding that petitioner was able to adduce evidence that would justify its dismissal of respondent, the NLRC correctly ruled that the latter's failure to turn over his functions to someone capable of performing the vital tasks which he could not effectively perform or undertake because of his heart ailment or condition constitutes gross neglect. It stated that: x x x Be it mentioned and emphasized that complainant cannot be faulted for his absences incurred on 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 27 and 28 of April 2000 as he went on official leave on said dates. Except for the last two dates mentioned (27 and 28 April 2000), health problem compelled complainant to be on sick leave of absence on the foregoing dates. It is not the complainant's liking, in other words, to be afflicted with any form of heart ailment which actually caused him to incur such leave of absences. Complainant's pellucid fault, however, lies on his failure to effect the "much-needed" turn over of functions to someone capable of performing the vital task(s) which he could not effectively perform or undertake because of his heart ailment or condition. Indeed, the trouble(s) "felt" by management and the employees concerned on the payday of 15 April 2000 may seem justified under the circumstances as complainant indeed has gotten ill and in fact went on sick leave of absence prior to said payday. The same, however, certainly does not hold true as to the trouble(s) and chaos felt and which occurred on the payday of 30 April 2000 as diligence and prudence logically and equitably required complainant to have effected the necessary turn over of his functions to someone capable of taking over his assigned task(s) even perhaps on a merely temporary basis. The preparation of payroll, especially that of a big business entity such as herein respondent company, certainly involves serious, diligent, and meticulous attention of the employee tasked of performing such function and a company definitely could not let either negligence or absence of the employee concerned get in the way of the performance of the undertaking of such, otherwise, serious repercussion(s) would be the logical and unavoidable consequences; such is what befell the respondents. Be it mentioned at this juncture that under the circumstances herein then prevailing, it would seem just logical and in keeping with the natural "reflexes," so to speak, of a business entity, to require an incapable employee tasked to perform a vital function, to effect the necessary turn over of functions of such employee to someone capable. Be it further emphasized, however, that even assuming that no formal directive was given by the company to the employee concerned for the turn over of the latter's functions, said employee should have taken the initiative of so doing considering the importance of the task(s) he is performing. Hence, failure to do so would clearly be tantamount to serious neglect of duty, a valid ground in terminating employment relations.[25] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter's business.[26] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of an employee.[39] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long stated that the objection to the transfer being grounded solely upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of transfer.[19] Such being the case, petitioner cannot adamantly refuse to abide by the order of transfer without exposing herself to the risk of being dismissed. Hence, her dismissal was for just cause in accordance with Article 282(a)[20] of the Labor Code. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement or separation pay and backwages.[21] | |||||
|
2008-05-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirements of its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employee's salary, benefits, and other privileges.[24] In this case, we found that the order of transfer was reasonable and lawful considering the integration of Oro Verde Warehouse with VisMin Logistics Operations. Respondent was properly informed of the transfer but he refused to receive the notices on the pretext that he was wary because of his pending case against petitioner. Respondent failed to prove that petitioner was acting in bad faith in effecting the transfer. There was no demotion involved, or even a diminution of his salary, benefits, and other privileges. Respondent's persistent refusal to obey petitioner's lawful order amounts to willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; x x x x (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (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.[43] On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[44] | |||||
|
2007-02-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in the service or a lateral movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or salary;[4] (b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for legitimate business purposes;[5] (c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without sufficient cause;[6] (d) the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.[7] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As earlier stated, Registry Return Card No. 2706 shows that a copy of the appellate court's decision addressed to petitioner's counsel was received on March 3, 2005 by his secretary Melanie. Genuino Ice Company, Inc. v. Magpantay[24] teaches:The presumption is that the decision was delivered to a person in his office, [received by a person] who was duly authorized to receive papers for him, in the absence of proof to the contrary. It is likewise a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted, which includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The registry return of the registered mail as having been received is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Thus, it was necessary for respondent (in this case, the petitioner) to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence. (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied) | |||||