This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Citing a ruling of the Court in an earlier case,[16] the CA pointed out that the company did not allow Dalangin to prove that he possessed the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for his regular employment; instead, it dismissed Dalangin peremptorily from the service. It opined that it was quite improbable that the company could fully determine Dalangin's performance barely one month into his employment.[17] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Besides, Mayor Bendaña's own assessment of Magnaye's performance could not have served as a sufficient basis to dismiss him because said mayor was not his immediate superior and did not have daily contacts with him. Additionally, Mayor Bendaña terminated his employment less than one and one-half months after his assumption to office. This is clearly a short period within which to assess his performance. In the case of Miranda v. Carreon, [21] it was stated: The 1987 Constitution provides that "no officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law." Under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a government officer or employee may be removed from the service on two (2) grounds: (1) unsatisfactory conduct and (2) want of capacity. While the Code does not define and delineate the concepts of these two grounds, however, the Civil Service Law (Presidential Decree No. 807, as amended) provides specific grounds for dismissing a government officer or employee from the service. Among these grounds are inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. In the case at bar, respondents were dismissed on the ground of poor performance. Poor performance falls within the concept of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties which, as earlier mentioned, are grounds for dismissing a government official or employee from the service. | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We take cognizance of the fact that in any given workplace, not all of the employees perform in accordance with what is expected of them. As such, it is not uncommon that an employee's work performance is found to be unsatisfactory. As a general concept, "poor performance" is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.[15] Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties.[16] The fact that an employee's performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care.[17] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[18] | |||||
|
2005-02-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Interpreting the above rule, in Miranda vs. Carreon,[11] Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez vs. Court of Appeals,[12] and Roque, et al. vs. Delgado, et al.,[13] we held that where the petitioner (a public officer) ceases to be mayor, the appeal and/or action he initiated may be continued and maintained by his successor if there is substantial need to do so. If the successor failed to pursue the appeal and/or action, the same should be dismissed. | |||||