Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 160982 2013-06-26	MANILA JOCKEY CLUB v. AIMEE O. TRAJANO BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the loss of trust and confidence must be related to the employee's performance of duties. As held in Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission:[31]
	GR No. 179507 2009-10-02	EATS-CETERA FOOD SERVICES OUTLET v. MYRNA B. LETRAN NACHURA, J.
Article 282 of the Labor Code includes serious misconduct, fraud and willful breach of trust among the just causes for termination.[13] But prior to termination on such grounds, the employer must satisfy both substantive and procedural due process. Not only must the employee be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense, but the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause as provided by law.[14]
	GR No. 159358 2009-07-15	EUREKA PERSONNEL v. EDUARDO VALENCIA BRION, J.
In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court is limited to the review of errors of law; we do not pass upon findings of facts under this mode of review unless the lower tribunal's decision is shown to be attended by grave abuse of discretion, as when they are shown to have been made arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record.[13] This rule applies with great force in labor cases where the ruling tribunal - the NLRC - exercises specialized jurisdiction and has acknowledged expertise on labor matters; we generally accord the NLRC's findings not only respect but even finality, unless the exceptions mentioned above exist, or when a review of the findings of facts is rendered necessary and appropriate because the factual findings and conclusions of the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA (as the court essentially tasked with factual review) are in conflict with one another.[14]
	GR No. 153983 2009-05-26	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner argues that even on the assumption that respondent did not benefit from the misdeeds, still, the mere act of falsifying company records and documents is already sufficient to warrant respondent's termination from employment. Moreover, such an act is pure and simple dishonesty and reflects on the moral character of the employee and his fitness to continue in employment as a salesman. Citing the cases of Filipro, Inc. v. NLRC,[9] Bernardo v. NLRC,[10] Mirano et al v. NLRC,[11] and; Gonzales v. NLRC,[12] petitioner maintains that the right of management to terminate the services of employees found to have falsified company records or documents has been repeatedly upheld by this Court.
	GR No. 166096 2008-09-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO REYES, R.T., J.
C. Velasco has become unfit to continue working at PNB. Taken together, his acts render him unfit to remain in the employ of the bank. That it is his first offense is of no moment because he holds a managerial position. Employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating managerial employees who, by virtue of their position, require full trust and confidence in the performance of their duties.[74] Managerial employees like Velasco are tasked to perform key and sensitive functions and are bound by more exacting work ethics.[75] Indeed, not even his eighteen (18) years of service could exonerate him. As this Court held in Equitable PCIBank v. Caguioa:[76]
	GR NO. 165594 2007-04-23	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S ACCEPTANCE OF SEPARATION BENEFITS AMOUNTS TO A WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF HIS DISMISSAL.[25] Apropos the first issue, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals may review the findings of fact of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 even if the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC do not conflict with each other; that the reliance of the Court of Appeals on the case of Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission[26] was contrary to law and jurisprudence; that our ruling in Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission, to wit: "Only when the factual findings and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC are clearly in conflict with each other is this Court behooved to give utmost attention to and thoroughly scrutinize the records of the case, more particularly the evidence presented, to arrive at a correct decision," is not absolute; that the aforecited ruling is only a general rule and is only binding if the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are supported by substantial evidence; and that in the case of Maya Farms Employees Organization v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] this Court held that findings of fact of the NLRC, even though these do not conflict with the findings of the Labor Arbiter, may be reviewed on certiorari when these findings are made in disregard of the evidence on record.[28]
	GR NO. 148261 2006-10-09	NENUCA A. VELEZ v. SHANGRI-LA'S EDSA PLAZA HOTEL GARCIA, J.
[18] Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 131653, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 195.
	GR NO. 165476 2006-03-10	AGRIPINO V. MOLINA v. PACIFIC PLANS CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a general rule, employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel.[72] The mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust and confidence of his employer would suffice for his dismissal.[73]