Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 208321 2014-07-30	WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES v. NOWELLA REYES VELASCO JR., J.
In Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas,[24] We discussed the difference between the criteria for determining the validity of invoking loss of trust and confidence as a ground for terminating a managerial employee on the one hand and a rank-and-file employee on the other. In the said case, We held that with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer would not suffice. With respect to a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. The following excerpts from Lima Land are instructive: As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
	GR No. 192582 2014-04-07	BLUER THAN BLUE JOINT VENTURES COMPANY v. GLYZA ESTEBAN REYES, J.
The Court is not saying that Esteban is innocent of any breach of company policy. That she relayed the password to another employee is likewise demonstrative of her mindless appreciation of her duties as a sales clerk in the petitioner's employ. But absent any showing that her acts were done with "moral perverseness" that would justify the claimed loss of trust and confidence attendant to her job,[30] the Court must sustain the conclusion that Esteban was illegally dismissed. As stated by the CA, "[s]uspension would have sufficed as punishment, considering that the petitioner had already been with the company for more than 2 years, and the petitioner apologized and readily admitted her mistake in her written explanation, and considering that no clear and convincing evidence of loss or prejudice, which was suffered by the [petitioner] from [Esteban's] supposed infraction."[31]
	GR No. 184520 2013-03-13	ROLANDO DS. TORRES v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JUAN REYES, J.
Settled is the rule that when supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[30] As such, only errors of law are reviewed by the Court in petitions for review of CA decisions. By way of exception, however, the Court will exercise its equity jurisdiction and re-evaluate, review and re-examine the factual findings of the CA when, as in this case, the same are contradicting[31] with the findings of the labor tribunals.
	GR No. 173357 2013-02-13	ROWENA DE LEON CRUZ v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS PERALTA, J.
As the decision of the Labor Arbiter has been appealed to the NLRC, the NLRC has the power to review the factual finding and resolution of the Labor Arbiter. It is a settled rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Court of Appeals.[15] However, an exception to this rule is when the findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.[16] In this case, the Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was illegally dismissed, while the NLRC reversed the finding of the Labor Arbiter, which reversal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In view of the discordance between the findings of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, there is a need for the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to review the factual findings and the conclusions based on the said findings.[17]
	GR No. 198733 2012-10-10	JOHANSEN WORLD GROUP CORPORATION v. RENE MANUEL GONZALES III CARPIO, J.
Stated differently, the loss of trust and confidence must be based not on ordinary breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by the employer, but, in the language of Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code, on willful breach. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee which must be established by substantial evidence. Moreover, the burden of proof required in labor cases must be amply discharged.[17]
	GR No. 168317 2011-11-21	DUP SOUND PHILS. v. CA PERALTA, J.
The consistent rule is that the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.[18] In addition, the employer must also observe the requirements of procedural due process. In the present case, petitioners failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that private respondent's dismissal was for a justifiable cause and in accordance with due process.
	GR No. 187887 2011-09-07	PAMELA FLORENTINA P. JUMUAD v. HI-FLYER FOOD MENDOZA, J.
Based on established facts, the mere existence of the grounds for the loss of trust and confidence justifies petitioner's dismissal. Pursuant to the Court's ruling in Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas,[38] as long as there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position, a managerial employee may be dismissed.
	GR No. 192416 2011-03-23	GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS v. ANNALIZA M. ESTRELLA NACHURA, J.
We must stress anew that, in termination cases, the burden rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of an employee is for just cause, and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.[41] Failure to discharge that burden would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.[42] Grandteq miserably failed to discharge this onus, and Estrella's termination from employment was, thus, illegal.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
While in Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas,[49] the Court ruled: Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.