This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's inability to keep up with his deadlines and his carelessness with his report on product samples during a difficult time in his life are in no way comparable to the transgressions in the cases cited by petitioner involving other territory representatives Chua v. National Labor Relations Commission[41] and Gustilo v. Wyeth Philippines.[42] In the Chua case, it was not a mere case of delay in the submission of reports and the occasional mistakes in the DCR, but an established pattern of inattention in the submission and accomplishing of his reports. The employee therein did not even submit some of the DCRs, while other DCRs were belatedly submitted in batches covering two to three months. Doctors' call cards lacked either the corresponding dates or the signatures of the doctors concerned. In the Gustillo case, the employee falsified his application form, a gasoline receipt, a report of his trade outlet calls, and misused his leaves. Evidently, the employee in this case misappropriated company resources by making claims for falsified expenses and making personal calls in lieu of trade outlet calls. In this case, respondent had not defrauded the petitioner of its property. | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Hence, it was incumbent upon Anita's foreign employer to comply with this requirement. This, her employer failed to do, entitling Anita to nominal damages[30] of P30,000 in accordance with recent jurisprudence,[31] to vindicate or recognize her right to procedural due process which was violated by her employer. | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As the records bear out, private respondent himself seasonably realized his oversight and in no time recorded the 7:25 a.m. call after the 7:30 a.m. call. Gross negligence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, [29] as amended, 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 upon the circumstances.[30] Here, it is not disputed that private respondent corrected straight away the recording of the call and petitioners failed to prove the damage or injury that such inadvertence caused the company. We find, as the Labor Arbiter[31] had found, that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove private respondent's negligence, gross or simple for that matter, in the performance of his duties to warrant a reduction of six months salary from private respondent's separation pay. Moreover, respondent missed to properly record, not two or three calls, but just a single call. It was also a first infraction on the part of private respondent, not to mention that the gaffe, if at all, proved to be innocuous. Thus, we find such slip to be within tolerable range. After all, is it not a rule[32] that in carrying out and interpreting the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be primordial? | |||||