Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 190303 2014-07-09	COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA v. ENGR. DEBORAH P. TARDEO PEREZ, J.
Misconduct is defined as improper and 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. Of course, ordinary misconduct would not justify the termination of the services of an employee. The law is explicit that the misconduct should be serious. It is settled that in order for misconduct to be serious, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. As amplified by jurisprudence, the misconduct must (1) be serious; (2) relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (3) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[20]
	GR No. 165199 2009-11-27	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. INOCENCIO B. BERBANO CARPIO, J.
Misconduct has been defined as 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 mere error of judgment.[23] Ordinary misconduct would not justify the termination of services of the employee as the Labor Code is explicit that the misconduct must be serious.[24] To be serious, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant.[25] Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation.[26] As amplified by jurisprudence, misconduct, to be a just cause for dismissal, must (a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[27] Moreover, in National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino,[28] this Court stressed that "[i]n order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent."