Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE v. MARILYN A. PASAWA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 186243 2011-06-01	HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ v. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS NACHURA, J.
We quote with approval the CA's observation in this wise: Verily, a cursory examination of the employment contract readily shows the absence of any standard to which [respondent] should comply. Neither was there any indicia that [respondent] was ever informed of the said standards if there [were] any. What [petitioners] merely claim, as mentioned above, is that [respondent] was presumed to know the standard required of him as General Manager in charge [of] the pre-opening of the resort.[21 ] In Secon Philippines, Ltd. v. NLRC,[22] Orient Express Placement Phils. v. NLRC,[23] and Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO) v. Pasawa,[24] we did not sustain the employees' dismissal for failure of the employer to apprise them of the reasonable standards they needed to comply with for their continued employment.
	GR No. 186243 2011-04-11	HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ v. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS NACHURA, J.
We quote with approval the CA's observation in this wise: Verily, a cursory examination of the employment contract readily shows the absence of any standard to which [respondent] should comply. Neither was there any indicia that [respondent] was ever informed of the said standards if there [were] any. What [petitioners] merely claim, as mentioned above, is that [respondent] was presumed to know the standard required of him as General Manager in charge [of] the pre-opening of the resort.[21 ] In Secon Philippines, Ltd. v. NLRC,22 Orient Express Placement Phils. v. NLRC,23 and Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO) v. Pasawa,[24] we did not sustain the employees' dismissal for failure of the employer to apprise them of the reasonable standards they needed to comply with for their continued employment.
	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence as a ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature.[32] It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper, and unjustified.[33] It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.[34] Let it not be forgotten that what is at stake is the means of livelihood, the name, and the reputation of the employee.[35] To countenance an arbitrary exercise of that prerogative is to negate the employee's constitutional right to security of tenure.[36]