Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCORDE HOTEL v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The most basic of tenets in employee termination cases is that no worker shall be dismissed from employment without the observance of substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process means that the ground upon which the dismissal is based is one of the just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code. Procedural due process, on the other hand, requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him, given reasonable time to answer the same, allowed ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires.[32] The employee must be furnished two written notices: the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second is a subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[33]
	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
It has not escaped Our attention that petitioner changed his stance as far as his actual position is concerned. In his position paper, he alleged that at the time of his dismissal, he was "Chief Cook."[46] However, in his memorandum, he now claimed that he was an "Asst. Cook."[47] The ploy is clearly aimed at giving the impression that petitioner is merely a rank-and-file employee. The change in nomenclature does not, however, help petitioner, as he would still be covered by the trust and confidence rule. In Concorde Hotel v. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court categorically ruled:Petitioner is correct insofar as it considered the nature of private respondent's position as assistant cook a position of trust and confidence. As assistant cook, private respondent is charged with the care of food preparation in the hotel's coffee shop. He is also responsible for the custody of food supplies and must see to it that there is sufficient stock in the hotel kitchen. He should not permit food or other materials to be taken out from the kitchen without the necessary order slip or authorization as these are properties of the hotel. Thus, the nature of private respondent's position as assistant cook places upon him the duty of care and custody of Concorde's property.[49] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 164824 2008-04-30	ROLANDO V. AROMIN v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
Like the NLRC, the CA, among other things, found Aromin to have violated the trust reposed on him by the bank and exacted by the nature of his duties, noting that BPI had complied with the requirements set forth in Concorde Hotel v. Court of Appeals[17] for dismissing an employee on the ground of loss of trust. The CA added the observation that Aromin's guilt for acts which amounted to dishonesty militates against his entitlement to financial assistance, as decreed by the labor arbiter.
	GR No. 175283 2008-03-28	JACKQUI R. MORENO v. SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-RECOLETOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The most basic of tenets in employee termination cases is that no worker shall be dismissed from employment without the observance of substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process means that the ground upon which the dismissal is based is one of the just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code. Procedural due process, on the other hand, requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him, given reasonable time to answer the same, allowed ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires.[22] The employee must be furnished two written notices: the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second is a subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[23]
	GR NO. 163099 2005-10-04	AMADEO FISHING CORPORATION v. ROMEO NIERRA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In upholding the dismissal of the private respondents for just cause, the appellate court cited Concorde Hotel v. Court of Appeals[24] where the Court ruled that loss of confidence applies not only in cases involving employees who occupy positions of trust and confidence, but also to those situations where the employee is charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property. Furthermore, the conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal since the trial court's dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence is not binding and conclusive on the Labor Arbiter.
	GR No. 151981 2003-12-01	DIAMOND MOTORS CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, we have laid down the guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence in the case of Concorde Hotel v. Court of Appeals, [13] i.e., (a) the loss of confidence should not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (c) it should not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.