Lawyerly

GR No. 200857

2014-10-22

BRION, J.

To be valid, an employee's dismissal must comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process. Substantively, a dismissal should be supported by a just or authorized cause.[32] Procedurally, the employer must observe the twin notice and hearing requirements in carrying out an employee's dismissal.[33]

GR No. 188828

2014-03-05

CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS. v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR

PEREZ, J.

Time and again we reiterate the established rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts[18] and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, when supported by substantial evidence.[19]

GR No. 173012

2012-06-13

DOLORES T. ESGUERRA v. VALLE VERDE COUNTRY CLUB

BRION, J.

"Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold[:] the substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause, the rudimentary requirements of due process notice and hearing must, likewise, be observed x x x. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination would x x x be illegal[;] employment is a property right of which one cannot be deprived of without due process."[18]

GR No. 168120

2012-01-25

MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA

PEREZ, J.

In order to validly dismiss an employee, the employer is required to observe both substantive and procedural aspects the termination of employment must be based on a just or authorized cause of dismissal and the dismissal must be effected after due notice and hearing.[37]

GR No. 186289

2010-06-29

ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, we find substantial evidence to support the decision of Labor Arbiter Lustria. Substantial evidence is such amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[63]

AM No. 2008-20-SC

2010-03-15

RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. CORAZON S. SALVADOR AND SPS. NOEL AND AMELIA SERAFICO

PER CURIAM

The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.[55] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[56] In sum, we find Noel and Amelia guilty of grave misconduct for misrepresenting that they could help in the favorable outcome of a case or for setting a case for agenda by the Court En Banc.

GR No. 157861

2010-02-02

BIBIANA FARMS v. ARTURO LADO

BRION, J.

Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold, consisting of substantive and procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause; the basic requirements of procedural due process - notice and hearing - must likewise be observed before an employee may be dismissed. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination is illegal in the eyes of the law, for employment is a property right that the holder cannot be deprived of without due process. [24] The burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the employee's dismissal has met these due process requirements. The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. [25]

GR No. 169606

2009-11-27

BERNARDO B. JOSE v. MICHAELMAR PHILS.

CARPIO, J.

Article 282(a) of the Labor Code states that the employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct. Drug use in the premises of the employer constitutes serious misconduct. In Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation,[30] the Court held that:The charge of drug use inside the company's premises and during working hours against petitioner constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination. Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. 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 merely an error in judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the Act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless, in connection with the work of the employee, constitute just cause for his separation. This Court took judicial notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question therefore that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer. (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 182499

2009-10-02

CONCEPCION FAELDONIA v. TONG YAK GROCERIES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[19] However, when there is a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts.[20]

GR No. 175855

2009-10-02

CELEBES JAPAN FOODS CORPORATION v. SUSAN YERMO

PERALTA, J.

Significantly, there was no bona fide attempt on the part of petitioner to comply with the notice requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Records show that on November 7, 2000, respondents were refused entrance by the guards manning the gate of the Davao Fish Port Complex, based on a memorandum of even date issued by Romero, petitioner's Office Manager, stating that respondents had been terminated effective November 1, 2000. Respondents learned of the existence of such memorandum, which was posted only in the guardhouse on the day they were refused entrance to the gate. There was indeed no notice at all to respondents. Notably, there was not even any reason stated in the memorandum why they were being terminated. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the requirement of the notice of termination, for we have ruled in a number of cases that non-compliance therewith is tantamount to deprivation of the employee's right to due process.[16]

GR No. 165407

2009-06-05

HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO v. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES

PERALTA, J.

These defects are bolstered by Bergante and Inguillo who remain steadfast in denying that they were notified of the specific charges against them nor were they given any memorandum to that effect. They averred that had they been informed that their dismissal was due to FPSILU's demand/petition, they could have impleaded the FPSILU together with the respondents. The Court has always underscored the significance of the two-notice rule in dismissing an employee and has ruled in a number of cases that non-compliance therewith is tantamount to deprivation of the employee's right to due process.[51]

	GR No. 200857 2014-10-22	FVR SKILLS v. JOVERT SEVA BRION, J.
To be valid, an employee's dismissal must comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process. Substantively, a dismissal should be supported by a just or authorized cause.[32] Procedurally, the employer must observe the twin notice and hearing requirements in carrying out an employee's dismissal.[33]
	GR No. 188828 2014-03-05	CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS. v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR PEREZ, J.
Time and again we reiterate the established rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts[18] and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, when supported by substantial evidence.[19]
	GR No. 173012 2012-06-13	DOLORES T. ESGUERRA v. VALLE VERDE COUNTRY CLUB BRION, J.
"Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold[:] the substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause, the rudimentary requirements of due process notice and hearing must, likewise, be observed x x x. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination would x x x be illegal[;] employment is a property right of which one cannot be deprived of without due process."[18]
	GR No. 168120 2012-01-25	MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA PEREZ, J.
In order to validly dismiss an employee, the employer is required to observe both substantive and procedural aspects the termination of employment must be based on a just or authorized cause of dismissal and the dismissal must be effected after due notice and hearing.[37]
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, we find substantial evidence to support the decision of Labor Arbiter Lustria. Substantial evidence is such amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[63]
	AM No. 2008-20-SC 2010-03-15	RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. CORAZON S. SALVADOR AND SPS. NOEL AND AMELIA SERAFICO PER CURIAM
The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.[55] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[56] In sum, we find Noel and Amelia guilty of grave misconduct for misrepresenting that they could help in the favorable outcome of a case or for setting a case for agenda by the Court En Banc.
	GR No. 157861 2010-02-02	BIBIANA FARMS v. ARTURO LADO BRION, J.
Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold, consisting of substantive and procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause; the basic requirements of procedural due process - notice and hearing - must likewise be observed before an employee may be dismissed. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination is illegal in the eyes of the law, for employment is a property right that the holder cannot be deprived of without due process. [24] The burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the employee's dismissal has met these due process requirements. The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. [25]
	GR No. 169606 2009-11-27	BERNARDO B. JOSE v. MICHAELMAR PHILS. CARPIO, J.
Article 282(a) of the Labor Code states that the employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct. Drug use in the premises of the employer constitutes serious misconduct. In Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation,[30] the Court held that:The charge of drug use inside the company's premises and during working hours against petitioner constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination. Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. 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 merely an error in judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the Act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless, in connection with the work of the employee, constitute just cause for his separation. This Court took judicial notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question therefore that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 182499 2009-10-02	CONCEPCION FAELDONIA v. TONG YAK GROCERIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[19] However, when there is a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts.[20]
	GR No. 175855 2009-10-02	CELEBES JAPAN FOODS CORPORATION v. SUSAN YERMO PERALTA, J.
Significantly, there was no bona fide attempt on the part of petitioner to comply with the notice requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Records show that on November 7, 2000, respondents were refused entrance by the guards manning the gate of the Davao Fish Port Complex, based on a memorandum of even date issued by Romero, petitioner's Office Manager, stating that respondents had been terminated effective November 1, 2000. Respondents learned of the existence of such memorandum, which was posted only in the guardhouse on the day they were refused entrance to the gate. There was indeed no notice at all to respondents. Notably, there was not even any reason stated in the memorandum why they were being terminated. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the requirement of the notice of termination, for we have ruled in a number of cases that non-compliance therewith is tantamount to deprivation of the employee's right to due process.[16]
	GR No. 165407 2009-06-05	HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO v. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES PERALTA, J.
These defects are bolstered by Bergante and Inguillo who remain steadfast in denying that they were notified of the specific charges against them nor were they given any memorandum to that effect. They averred that had they been informed that their dismissal was due to FPSILU's demand/petition, they could have impleaded the FPSILU together with the respondents. The Court has always underscored the significance of the two-notice rule in dismissing an employee and has ruled in a number of cases that non-compliance therewith is tantamount to deprivation of the employee's right to due process.[51]

EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION