Lawyerly

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee's right to security of tenure."[63] Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.

GR No. 154113

2011-12-07

EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration while private respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the award of separation pay. The former also invoked the decision of this Court in Bascon v. Court of Appeals, [26] while the latter argued for the application of the ruling in decision rendered by the CA (Cebu City) in Miculob v. NLRC, et al. (CA-G.R. SP No. 84538), [27] both involving similar complaints filed by dismissed employees of MCCHI.

GR No. 182397

2011-09-14

ALERT SECURITY v. SAIDALI PASAWILAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As stated in Bascon v. Court of Appeals:[21]

GR No. 178903

2011-05-30

JULIET G. APACIBLE v. MULTIMED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Bascon v. Court of Appeals[17] outlines the elements of gross insubordination as follows: As regards the appellate court's finding that petitioners were justly terminated for gross insubordination or wilful disobedience, Article 282 of the Labor Code provides in part:

GR NO. 165598

2007-08-14

LAGONOY BUS CO. v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[13] we held that the special civil action of certiorari is the mode of judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC either by this Court or the Court of Appeals, but the latter court is the more appropriate forum in view of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and that, in the exercise of this power, the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC.[14]

GR NO. 165995

2007-08-14

SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

Willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, envisages 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.[17]

GR NO. 167347

2007-01-31

CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, whereas a union member may be similarly faulted if he knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.[32] Substantial evidence, which is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,[33] suffices to prove participation in the commission of illegal acts. [34]

GR NO. 149074

2006-08-10

ASIAN TERMINALS v. DANILO MARBELLA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) 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.[6]

GR NO. 147790

2006-06-27

GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Willful disobedience, or insubordination as otherwise branded in this case, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, 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.[44]

GR NO. 155279

2005-10-11

MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

Hermosa was unjustly dismissed. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must concur: (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.[16]

	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee's right to security of tenure."[63] Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.
	GR No. 154113 2011-12-07	EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration while private respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the award of separation pay. The former also invoked the decision of this Court in Bascon v. Court of Appeals, [26] while the latter argued for the application of the ruling in decision rendered by the CA (Cebu City) in Miculob v. NLRC, et al. (CA-G.R. SP No. 84538), [27] both involving similar complaints filed by dismissed employees of MCCHI.
	GR No. 182397 2011-09-14	ALERT SECURITY v. SAIDALI PASAWILAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As stated in Bascon v. Court of Appeals:[21]
	GR No. 178903 2011-05-30	JULIET G. APACIBLE v. MULTIMED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED CARPIO MORALES, J.
Bascon v. Court of Appeals[17] outlines the elements of gross insubordination as follows: As regards the appellate court's finding that petitioners were justly terminated for gross insubordination or wilful disobedience, Article 282 of the Labor Code provides in part:
	GR NO. 165598 2007-08-14	LAGONOY BUS CO. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[13] we held that the special civil action of certiorari is the mode of judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC either by this Court or the Court of Appeals, but the latter court is the more appropriate forum in view of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and that, in the exercise of this power, the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC.[14]
	GR NO. 165995 2007-08-14	SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
Willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, envisages 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.[17]
	GR NO. 167347 2007-01-31	CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, whereas a union member may be similarly faulted if he knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.[32] Substantial evidence, which is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,[33] suffices to prove participation in the commission of illegal acts. [34]
	GR NO. 149074 2006-08-10	ASIAN TERMINALS v. DANILO MARBELLA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) 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.[6]
	GR NO. 147790 2006-06-27	GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Willful disobedience, or insubordination as otherwise branded in this case, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, 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.[44]
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Hermosa was unjustly dismissed. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must concur: (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.[16]

ELIZABETH C. BASCON v. CA