This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| On a related point, the Court observes that there lies no competent basis to support the common observation of the NLRC and the CA that the retention of excess medical supplies was a tolerated practice among the nurses at the Pediatric Unit. While there were previous incidents of "hoarding," it appears that such acts were in similar fashion furtively made and the items secretly kept, as any excess items found in the concerned nurse's possession would have to be confiscated.[68] Hence, the fact that no one was caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing the prohibition therefor does not mean that the so-called "hoarding" practice was tolerated by SLMC. Besides, whatever maybe the justification behind the violation of the company rules regarding excess medical supplies is immaterial since it has been established that an infraction was deliberately committed.[69] Doubtless, the deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules by the employee cannot be countenanced as it may encourage him or her to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe.[70] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The second issue raised is the validity of the CA Resolution dated December 5, 2012. Petitioner alleges that the CA denied his reconsideration without indicating its legal basis in violation of the mandate of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that no petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. This requirement, however, was complied with when the CA, in its resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, stated that it "finds no cogent reason to reverse, amend, much less reverse the assailed Decision, dated June 13, 2012."[45] | |||||
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Manulife has failed to overcome such burden. Willful disobedience, to justify termination from employment, must comply with the following requirements, as enunciated in Areno v. SkyCable PCC-Baguio,[50] to wit: As a just cause for dismissal of an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, i.e., characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. | |||||