Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEJANDRO ROQUERO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 175293 2014-07-23	CRISANTO F. CASTRO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in ruling that the dismissal of his complaint for illegal dismissal by the NLRC had mooted his petition for certiorari; that the sole issue in his petition for certiorari concerned his claim for salaries and benefits that had accrued by reason of the respondents' refusal to reinstate him, but the case that had been dismissed by the NLRC revolved around the validity of his termination; that the CA further erred in ruling that his execution of the quitclaim and receipt of payment constituted a settlement of his money claims, considering that his waiver pertained only to his retirement pay; that his entitlement to the accrued benefits and salaries found support in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines,[28] a ruling in which the employer was obliged to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of the appeal; and that Roquero v. Philippine Airlines declared that even if the decision was reversed with finality, the employee was not required to reimburse the salary that he had received.
	GR No. 195227 2014-04-21	FROILAN M. BERGONIO v. SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES BRION, J.
Otherwise stated, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which reinstatement is immediately executory. [24] Unless the appellate tribunal issues a restraining order, the LA is duty bound to implement the order of reinstatement and the employer has no option but to comply with it.[25]
	GR No. 164856 2009-01-20	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.[13]
	GR No. 174224 2008-10-17	MARCIAL APARECE v. J. MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
The foregoing acts constitute gross negligence and serious misconduct warranting petitioner's dismissal. To justify the dismissal of an employee for negligence, the act must not only be gross but also habitual, although it is not necessary that the employer show that he has incurred actual loss, damage or prejudice by reason of the employee's conduct.[15] Serious misconduct, on the other hand, 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. For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the performance of the employee's duty; and (3) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[16]
	GR No. 168081 2008-10-17	ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
Petitioner cannot take refuge in the pronouncements of the Court in a case[97] that "[t]he unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate the dismissed employee entitles him to payment of his salaries effective from the time the employer failed to reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ of execution"[98] and ""even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court."[99] He failed to prove that he complied with the return to work order of PAL. Neither does it appear on record that he actually rendered services for PAL from the moment he was dismissed, in order to insist on the payment of his full backwages.
	GR NO. 171927 2007-06-29	KEPHILCO MALAYA EMPLOYEES UNION v. KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Serious misconduct is defined as 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 of judgment.[10] To be serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.[11]
	GR NO. 167716 2006-03-23	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ELSIE ESCUDERO MANTAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the other hand, misconduct is improper or wrongful 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 mere error in judgment. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the misconduct, to be a just cause for termination, must be of such grave and aggravated character, not merely of a trivial or unimportant nature. For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the performance of the employee's duty; and (3) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[21]
	GR No. 143023 2005-11-29	EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CENTER v. CECILIA BEA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Procedural due process in labor law requires the employer to give the employee two notices.[10] The first is the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee to air his side, while the second is the subsequent notice of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[11] More particularly, Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides for the standards of due process to be substantially observed in cases of termination of employment, to wit:(d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: