This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Sario's repeated violations of the company's 2002 and 2004 Procurement Manuals lawful orders in themselves as they provide the dos and, necessarily, the don'ts of a procurement officer constitute willful disobedience. He committed the repeated violations because he knew or was confident that he would not get caught since his actions were being approved, as he claims, by his superiors, evidencing wrongful or perverse intent. While the Constitution urges the moderation of the sanction that may be applied to an employee where a penalty less punitive would suffice, as the Court pronounced in Marival Trading, Inc. v. NLRC,[34] cited by the CA, we do not believe that such a moderation is proper in this case. Sario has become unfit to remain in employment. A contrary view would be oppressive to the employer. "The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer."[35] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| One of the just causes enumerated in the Labor Code is serious misconduct. Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct.[16] It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[17] Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation.[18] Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court has repeatedly ruled that any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.[13] Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer.[14] Thus, as reiterated in G & M Philippines, Inc. v. Cuambot,[15] to wit: x x x one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents - which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of workers have been paid - are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. x x x [16] | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As a final note, the Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket.[46] Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable cause.[47] Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the cited grounds cannot be allowed.[48] | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We sustain the CA's finding that respondents were dismissed from employment, and that such dismissal was without just cause. In a number of cases, we have ruled that an employer's claim that an employee was not dismissed but voluntarily left his employment is effectively belied by the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. It is settled, after all, that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot, by logic, be said to have abandoned his work.[12] It then becomes imperative that the employer affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.[13] | |||||