This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code,[20] willful disobedience to the employer's lawful orders as a just cause for termination of employment needs the concurrence of at least two requisites, viz: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being 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 one has been engaged to discharge.[21] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under Art. 282(a) of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders as a just cause for termination of employment envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being 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 has been engaged to discharge.[27] | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing, notwithstanding, we find that respondent should be dismissed for willful disobedience of the memoranda issued by petitioner. To be validly dismissed on the ground of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being 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.[20] | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have held that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, these are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[18] The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function that the Supreme Court normally undertakes.[19] Only when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law will such findings of fact be set aside.[20] | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the issue as to whether there was a valid ground for the respondent's dismissal is factual in nature. And it is axiomatic that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the NLRC, are accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.[7] This is especially so in this case, where the findings of the NLRC were affirmed by the appellate court. The findings of facts made therein can only be set aside upon showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.[8] None has been shown in this case. | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded not only respect but even finality if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. This is especially so when such findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[11] However, if the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are conflicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.[12] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Similarly, we affirm the finding of the CA that the private respondent was illegally dismissed. In order to effect a valid dismissal, the law requires that (a) there be just and valid cause as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code;[13] and (b) the employee be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[14] | |||||