This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-02-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It ought to be without dispute that the betrayal of the trust the employer reposed in De Jesus was the essence of the offense for which she was to be validly penalized with the supreme penalty of dismissal.[13] Nevertheless, she was still entitled to due process in order to effectively safeguard her security of tenure. The law affording to her due process as an employee imposed on Supersonic as the employer the obligation to send to her two written notices before finally dismissing her. This requirement of two written notices is enunciated in Article 277of the Labor Code, as amended, which relevantly states: Article 277. Miscellaneous provisions. xxx | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected."[31] "The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized."[32] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The nature of the job of an employee becomes relevant in termination of employment by the employer because the rules on termination of managerial and supervisory employees are different from those on the rank-and-file. Managerial employees are tasked to perform key and sensitive functions, and thus are bound by more exacting work ethics.[41] As a consequence, managerial employees are covered by the trust and confidence rule.[42] The same holds true for supervisory employees occupying positions of responsibility.[43] | |||||
|
2008-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Similarly, petitioners submitted in the motion for reconsideration certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders and we may also consider the same as substantial compliance.[20] Petitioners also included in the motion for reconsideration their explanation[21] that copies of the petition were personally served on the Lazaro Law Firm and mailed to the RTC and Atty. Peralta because of distance. The affidavit of service[22] supported the explanation. Considering the substantial issues involved, it was thus error for the appellate court to deny reinstatement of the petition. | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The two-fold requirements of two notices and a hearing decrees that the second notice, which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him must come after the employee is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the charge and ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires.[40] This was not so in this case. Petitioner conspicuously failed to show that Salsona was given such reasonable period to answer the charges and to defend himself, as not very long after his submission of his explanation, he was already given a notice of termination. "Ample opportunity" is meant every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense.[41] | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As Assistant Crewing Manager, the respondent occupied a position of responsibility, imbued with trust and confidence. To be a valid ground for dismissal, however, loss of trust and confidence 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. Further, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[18] It must be premised on the fact that the employee concerned is invested with delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[19] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such 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.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22] | |||||